All language subtitles for Evolutions.Achilles.Heels.2014.1080p.BluRay.x264.AAC-[YTS.MX]

Downloaded from
YTS.MX

Official YIFY movies site:
YTS.MX

Legend says that as a child,
the great warrior Achilles

was dipped in the river Styx by his
mother to make him invincible.

However, she failed to immerse
the ankle by which she held him.

Despite his seeming invulnerability, the
mighty warrior Achilles had a weakness,

a fatal flaw that would bring
about his ultimate demise.

In ancient times, philosophers and scientists
struggled to understand their world.

Today that quest continues through
observation and experiment.

But from the beginning, our observations have
always been interpreted through a lens,

an already established belief
about where we came from.

Throughout history, people have often come to
conclusions they thought were irrefutable,

like the idea that the earth was
the center of the solar system,

only to have those ideas
come crashing down.

History shows that mistakes were often made
through incorrect interpretations of our world.

So can science really answer the
big underlying questions of:

Where did the universe come from!
How did it all begin!

Can science lead us to the
ultimate source of all knowledge!

Today, evolution is believed by
many to be an unquestionable fact,

as impervious to attack as
Achilles in his golden armor.

But there are scientists today
who have looked at the evidence

and have yet come to very different
conclusions about where we came from.

We're now going to look at the
main pillars of evolutionary theory

through the eyes of 15 Ph.D. scientists.

After closely examining the alleged
evidence, they have found fatal flaws:

Evolution's Achilles' Heels.

Most people see natural selection
as the main engine of evolution.

This supposedly slow and gradual mechanism

drives changes in the way species
look and behave over time.

It's also commonly called
survival of the fittest, but

that's a little confusing
because it's not always

the biggest and the strongest who survive.

In reality, natural selection
is all about reproduction;

the organism that had the most
descendants in later generations was,

by definition, the fittest.

And that usually comes about

because some variation in the organism

helped it to be more suited to
its environment than others.

So everybody talks about natural selection,

and they kind of almost imagine
like it's a magic wand,

it's an explanation for everything.

Natural selection is simply
differential reproduction.

In all living systems, in all populations,

some individuals reproduce
more than others;

that is natural selection.

As an example from my work
in soil microbiology,

particularly with pesticide degradation,

if we add pesticide to a soil system
to kill weeds, insects, or diseases,

within that bacterial population,
there is a portion that

can degrade or utilize that pesticide
as a carbon or nitrogen source to grow,

so that over time you have a
change in the population,

but natural selection did not
bring about any new features;

it was already in the population.

The first time that I saw a creation
presentation on natural selection,

I was just amazed at my
blindness prior to that

in not realizing that natural selection
can only operate on whatever is existing,

and it can only operate to
remove what is existing.

And so, the realization that
it doesn't actually produce

new genetic information was
an absolute bombshell to me.

So natural selection's actually
a convenient term to use

just to describe this
process by which creatures,

organisms not suited for the
environment, are eliminated;

those which are suited survive.

So natural selection is not
the same as evolution.

The survival of the fittest does not
explain the arrival of the fittest.

If natural selection only selects from
what's already in the population,

then how does evolutionary progress occur!

Mutations are the evolutionists'
hoped-for engine of evolution.

And if that's true, there should be hundreds
of examples that we could see today

of mutations increasing
the genetic information.

Is this Darwinian process, mutation plus
selection, is that a creative process!

In fact, is that the creative process!

And the answer is, it's
not a creative process;

the mutation-selection process is
only useful for fine-tuning systems.

And that's what we see in biology.

If we consider the most
common examples of evolution,

the ones you see in the
textbooks and things,

these are not due to some
new feature being added,

but breaking existing features.

For example, warfarin resistance in rats,

or DDT resistance in mosquitoes,

loss of sight in cave fish
and cave salamanders,

loss of functional wings in
beetles on a windy island;

in all these cases things
are broken by mutation,

and natural selection is
involved in selecting them;

getting rid of them happens to be adaptive.

But people say, hang on, I see new species
appearing, isn't that proof of evolution!

Well, not really, because it's
not a problem for creationists.

Both the creation and evolution models
predict the appearance of new species.

What I mean is that God
apparently created animals

that were designed to
diversify over time.

So you look at red wolves and
grey wolves; obviously

they're wolves that came
from a common ancestor

But all we would say is they came from two
wolf-like creatures that came off of Noah's ark.

Now the real problem is
defining what a species is.

I mean, keep in mind, species,

species the word, it's a man-made word,

and boundaries between
species are often blurry.

Scientists use the word in
multiple ways, I mean, geologists:

they tend to separate fossils into different
species based on the way they look,

but biologists sometimes say
things belong to the same species

if they can interbreed
regardless of how they look.

If you think about it, both sides
of the creation!evolution

debate predict the
formation of new species;

therefore, even though the appearance of new
species is necessary for evolutionary theory,

it cannot be proof of evolution if the
creationist model can make the same prediction.

Let me give you another example.
I've been to the Galápagos islands.

I've seen the marine iguanas
and the land iguanas.

They look different, they act different,

they live in different environments,
they eat different things.

They've been labeled as two distinct,
separate species by the evolutionists,

and they claim they've been
separated for millions of years.

Yet hybrid offspring between the two species
exist, and they're easy to find, so

they look different, but
they can interbreed.

Obviously they came from a single founding
species that made it to those islands,

but are they really separate species!

And it's not just among iguanas.

We've seen hybridizations between
false killer whales and dolphins,

donkeys and zebras, polar bears
and grizzlies, lions and tigers,

and many of these crosses
produce fertile offspring.

When Darwin went to the Galápagos, he
collected information about finches, and

he was looking for change over time.

It wasn't till quite some time later,
thinking about it, he realized

the finches he saw there
probably, almost certainly

were derived from finches
on the mainland.

But they're just variations
of finches, and in fact

today we know that many
of them can interbreed,

so they shouldn't even be
called different species.

So this is not an example of evolution
in the sense of microbes to mankind.

Darwin's basic concept in his tree
diagram was the tree of life,

that all living things today go
back to one common ancestor.

But creationists have the
idea, our idea is that

we can trace things back to basic kinds,

not one, but many different
basic kinds that were created,

and they've adapted, and speciated
and so on to give what we see today.

So instead of a tree, creationists
see it as more of an orchard,

where each tree in the
orchard is a basic kind

from which the branches actually are
the species and things we see today.

And adaptation and natural selection
are involved in that process.

I think that nature has been created
to be able to modify itself

fitting the circumstances
where living organisms are.

We see a lot of variation potential in
nature but real novelties are not there.

People talk about different
species and speciation

in nature; that's something
that we can observe.

But that is not the same
thing as creating novel

structures, novel information.
I don't see that.

You can imagine that you have a front-
loaded organism with all these genes,

and you can then argue that,
okay, in this particular

environment, you can
lose that part of genes,

and the other environment with other
selection pressure, with other conditions,

you can lose another part,
another set of the genes.

While it's true that mutations
can sometimes create new traits,

they generally only work to destroy
existing traits and information. So

when a new trait called sickle-
cell anemia arose in Africa,

it allowed people to survive malarial infections.
It was a new trait.

But the hemoglobin gene was
broken in the process.

Likewise, many examples of
antibiotic resistance in bacteria

deal with broken genes for
transporting things into the cell.

The reason that the bacteria
can live is because the

transporter gene is broken,
the poison can't get in.

It's easier to break something
than to create something new.

Natural selection plus mutation actually
works in the wrong direction for evolution.

So the question is: how
does evolution work!

Actually, I believe genetics is the most
powerful argument against evolution,

and the reason is that when you
look at the genes of things,

I mean, they're transmitted and
passed on generation to generation,

but the changes you see, the
mutations, actually destroy the genes.

What biology does is actually
it studies the genetics,

the genetic information, the
transfer of genetic information,

the control of genetic information,
or in my field, biotechnology,

how to change that intelligently,
to create something novel.

Darwinism has nothing to do with that.
The random approach produces nothing.

Randomness cannot compete with
intelligence in understanding nature.

I organized a symposium
at Cornell University,

and the topic was biological information.

And all of the scientists agreed
on one thing, and that is

that information is fundamental to
our understanding of what life is.

Information is, in a sense,
what makes life, life.

And I'm not just talking
about information like data,

I'm talking about information networks,
communication networks within the cell.

One of the most amazing information
transfer systems in the cell

involves the way proteins are encoded
in and decoded from strands of DNA,

starting out with these long,
fragile sticky strings of DNA,

an amazing machine called an RNA
polymerase zips down the strand,

opens up the coils and copies the DNA
into another molecule called RNA,

and RNA uses a slightly different language
convention. It still has four letters like DNA,

but instead of A, C, G, and
T, it has A, C, G, and U.

The RNA then leaves the nucleus, and
another amazing machine attaches to it.

It's called a ribosome, and it
is in charge of translating

from the language of the RNA
with its four letter bases

to the language of proteins with
their twenty different amino acids.

Three bases on the bottom of the tRNA
match to three-letter groups on the RNA.

On the other end are amino
acids which pop off as

they're attached to the
growing protein strand.

But the process isn't finished, because
most proteins need help folding properly.

And that's facilitated by little
molecules called chaperones.

They attach to and protect the
unfolded protein as it's transported

to a watermelon-shaped
molecule called a chaperonin,

which folds the protein
into its final form.

From DNA to protein is an incredibly
complex process that uses precise and

complex machines to translate between
two completely unrelated languages,

the linear code of the DNA world to the
three-dimensional code of the protein world.

If we look into these complexities
and into these codes in the genome

and in the working together, the
operating system in the cells,

then it is very hard to exclude that there
hasn't been intelligence behind it.

And I think that is what the
creationists recognize in these systems.

How did this incredible
communication network that's

even present in the simplest
cell, how did it arise!

Well, you need three things for it to arise.
Number one, you need a language.

You can't even conceive of a communication
system until there's a language

because there's senders and
receivers in the cell.

Secondly, you need communication
channels or networks,

it's a little bit like the hardware
that enables the Internet.

And thirdly, you have to
have meaningful information

that is being translated
into language and

communicated through the
channels of communication.

Information is at the heart
of cellular function.

Did you know the cell
even has a post office!

There are these specialized
molecules called kinesins,

and they're in charge of delivering packets
of material to different parts of the cell.

But in their journey, they go
to pre-specified destinations.

Without that addressing system,
the cell couldn't even work.

Information, communication, and language.

They're non-material entities,
they arise through intelligence,

and they're mutually defining, so you
can't have one without the other.

They all have to arise
at the same time.

Yet the information in the genome is much
more complicated than we first thought.

In fact, the genome contains multiple
levels, multiple dimensions of information.

Start with the one-dimensional
string called DNA.

Upon this is this huge two-dimensional
network of interactions

amongst different parts of
the genome with each other.

Then we have to fold the DNA
into a three-dimensional shape

that changes shape in the
fourth dimension, time.

To make it even more complicated,
it's now known that most parts

of the genome code for more than
one thing at the same time.

Overlapping codes are almost
impossible to improve upon,

because if you improve one
of the codes, you are

destroying or disrupting
one of the other codes.

So what I mean by overlapping
codes, of course, is that

the same sequence of DNA
has more than one message,

and that is now very, very clear.

Most of these overlapping codes are
found in the so-called junk DNA.

Since only two percent of the
genome actually codes for protein,

scientists decided decades ago
that the rest was unimportant

leftover garbage from our
evolutionary history.

But that view is now
seen to be quite naïve,

as the genomics revolution has
shown that non-protein-coding

portions of the genome are
actually quite active.

Not for creating proteins, but for creating
something similar to DNA called RNA,

which is one of the cellular
workhorses, and which

often affects the production
of protein down the line.

The junk DNA also contains
lots of other codes

for controlling many different
functions in the cell.

So basically a lot of
scientists now understand

that the junk DNA paradigm
was profoundly wrong

and will be recorded in history as one
of the greatest blunders of science,

and it was driven by an ideological
commitment to the Darwinian concept.

Similar to the junk DNA myth
is the myth that the human

and chimpanzee genomes are 98% identical

That figure has continued to decrease
as we learn more about genetics,

and the figure is now much less
than the earlier estimates.

But the number really doesn't
matter, because humans and

chimpanzees, they look similar,
we behave somewhat similarly

we live in the same environments,
we eat the same foods.

Both the creationists and the evolutionists
expect them to be similar genetically.

Creationists simply believe it's due
to common design not common ancestry.

Yet when you consider humans only, it is
staggering how similar we all are one to another.

And if you exclude recent mutations
like sickle-cell anemia

or hereditary blindness, all
those, you know, bad things,

it would be possible to put
all the world's human

diversity into a single
original human couple.

But there's a problem, and it
doesn't matter if you're looking

at the human genome or the chimpanzee
genome or any other genome,

and the problem is that the
information is degrading and

mutations are building up
in populations over time.

So I've been studying genetic entropy
for the last thirteen years,

and it's a really profound problem,

and it's something widely
acknowledged by geneticists,

and it is the problem that bad mutations
accumulate in the human genome,

and this is best illustrated by just
considering it on a personal level.

In your body or in my body, we have about three
new mutations every time a cell divides.

So this is sobering because
it's the reason we die.

And so the reason we get old and
all of our systems start

to break down is because of
this mutational process,

and the accumulation of bad
mutations in our genome.

It's why there's an upper lifespan.

Now, the problem is bigger still,

because of course we already
know that we're mortal.

But we transmit a certain fraction
of our mutations to our children,

and they add more mutations to it, and
they pass it on to their children,

and then they add more mutations still
and they add it to the next generation.

So this is a problem not just for
people, but for the whole human race.

And logically, the human race
should be devolving, not evolving.

Basically, the human race is degenerating,
the human genome is rusting out like a car.

Can natural selection solve this problem!

No.

Think of a room full of people.

Now kill off only the ones with the
worst or most obvious mutations.

What do you have left!

A room half-full of people that still have
60 to 100 more mutations than their parents.

If everyone is multiply mutant,

and if every generation is more
mutant than the one before it,

all selection can do is slow
down the degeneration

by killing off the absolute
worst of the lot. But

it doesn't stop mutations increasing
in the population over time.

So genetic entropy is profound.

Not only is it profound because
it really impacts us

personally and our children
and our grandchildren,

it's really profound because it is lethal.

It is absolutely lethal to
genetic evolutionary theory.

Because it means that things
are going down not up.

All modern scientific evidence
points to the decay

and destruction of an
original good design,

if you like, good
information getting worse.

But where did this good information
come from in the first place!

How did life begin!

Even under an evolutionary
scenario, the first

cell would have to have
been horrendously complex.

The general theory of evolution says that
all living things came from a single cell,

and that cell came from something
like a primordial soup.

And for me as a chemist, the
hardest problem for evolution

is the origin of first life
from non-living chemicals,

and this is commonly
called chemical evolution.

Most people have heard
of the Miller-Urey experiment,

and it's in most textbooks still today.

They wanted to see if organic molecules could
come from inorganic precursors. So they

took some simple chemicals and they
ran them through a spark chamber,

and most of the products they got really
amounted to nothing more than a brown tar,

because random chemical reactions
produced random molecules,

and yeah, they found a few amino acids, but
in a mixture of left and right handed forms.

But what they didn't find are certain specific
amino acids that are critical for life.

They didn't find nucleotides, they
didn't find any large biomolecules.

To get living things we need
lots of huge molecules,

and that means we have to get little
molecules to combine into big molecules.

The problem is that chemicals
don't react in that way.

Everything I've learned in real chemistry shows
that the reactions go in the opposite way

from what is required for life to
come from non-living chemicals.

Any chemist trying to do that would
not have water in the reaction,

because water tends to drive
the reaction in the

opposite direction towards
the little molecules.

Yet the primordial soup would
inevitably have loads of water in it.

So it's the last place any real chemist
would try to make proteins or DNA.

Another problem with chemical evolution
is called the chirality problem.

Now amino acids and proteins and
sugars in DNA come in two

mirror image forms like your
left hand and right hand,

but all the amino acids in
our body are left-handed,

and all the sugars and
DNA are right-handed.

But a primordial soup would
have an equal number of both,

and it's quite complicated to
get a single-handed mixture.

Now primordial soup does
not have that know-how,

and therefore it's totally
unsuitable for the origin of life.

The most common scenario for the evolutionary
origin of life is called the RNA world.

Here they imagine an ocean or
a lake full of RNA molecules

that are able to reproduce
themselves and that

slowly evolve into the first
reproducing organism.

The RNA world is a desperate attempt,
a last straw, a grasping at nothing,

and it is completely unscientific.

There's no RNA that can copy
itself from its individual

building blocks without a
protein to help it do that.

And so for evolutionists to claim that
RNA world is possible is dishonest.

To make it even worse, RNA
is more unstable than DNA.

In your cells, there are about a
million DNA breaks every day.

Most of those are fixed
by the unbelievably

intricate and amazing
repair systems in the cell.

But if RNA is less stable than DNA,

and DNA requires exquisite repair
systems just to survive over time,

how on earth can an RNA world be plausible!

Also, the building blocks
of RNA are threefold:

you've got a sugar, a base, and phosphate,

and naturally these things don't combine to
form the nucleotide bases needed for RNA.

So right from the start,
you've got a problem in

trying to get even the
building blocks of RNA.

And the components of the building
blocks are very unstable,

ribose and the bases
decompose really quickly.

Enzymes are also needed as
a catalyst in the cell,

and RNA can do this to
a very limited extent,

which is why the evolutionists appeal
to this initial RNA world idea.

But the reality is that in living cells,
protein-based enzymes do most of the work.

So life somehow had to switch from
RNA enzymes, for which there is

only a very limited support, to
this incredible protein enzymes.

How and when did that occur!

An enzyme is a molecule.
It's actually a catalyst

that makes a reaction go much faster
without being consumed in the process.

I mean, there are some very important
enzymes essential for life

that speed up the reaction by
ten to the power of 18 times,

which means that a reaction that goes in about
a hundredth of a second in living things

would take millions or billions of
years to happen without the enzyme,

so you need these enzymes
for life to exist.

If natural selection can't
explain these enzymes,

all evolutionists have is chance.
So is the chance feasible!

Well consider even the
simplest possible living thing

would have to have over
350 enzymes to work.

And the enzymes are made of a very
precise sequence of amino acids.

Now we could be very
generous to the evolutionist

and assume only 10 amino acids
in each enzyme have to be exact.

Now work out the probability
of say 350 enzymes

with only 10 amino acids in each
enzyme being exactly right.

The chance there is like guessing
a 5,000-digit pin the first time.

Even a 4-digit PIN on your bank card is
supposed to be enough protection for you,

and the bank will tell you
if someone got it right,

you must have left it
lying around somewhere.

It didn't happen by chance, so
how much more a 5,000 digit pin!

It's not going to be guessed by chance.

So there's a real chicken
and egg problem here

because the information in the
DNA requires enzymes to read it,

but the instructions to build
those enzymes are on the DNA,

which cannot be read without enzymes.

So which came first, the
enzymes or the DNA!

Most cellular processes, including things
like DNA replication and protein synthesis,

are powered by a molecule called ATP,

and the ATP synthase motor is one
of the wonders of the universe.

It's a tiny electric motor
required by all life.

This rotary motor uses
protons to generate spin,

and uses that to join ADP
molecules to phosphate molecules,

creating ATP, or adenosine triphosphate.

All life is based on ATP, it's called
the energy currency of the cell,

and your body produces its
own weight of ATP every day.

And that motor works at
nearly 100% efficiency.

ATP is a complex and reactive molecule
not found in abiotic systems,

yet without ATP, life could not exist.

How did life decide to use
that molecule for energy,

and where did it get it
before it could produce it!

It's not sufficient to
invoke scenarios where

I could imagine biochemicals
arising spontaneously.

Life isn't based upon biochemicals.

You can have all the biochemicals you want,
and it's not going to give you life.

You can have all the amino acids you want,
you can have all the proteins you want,

you can add RNA to the soup,
you can add DNA to

the soup, you can even add
membranes to the soup.

But number one, they will never assemble
into a coherent, correctly-assembled cell,

and even if they could, you still
wouldn't be anywhere near creating life,

because you have not introduced
into those molecules information.

Now think about information in the form of
books, which is ink molecules written on paper.

The information didn't come
from the ink molecules;

you could pour ink on a page and you
would not get a book out of it,

because the information in the
books is the result of a mind

organizing those ink molecules into letters
and words, sentences and paragraphs.

For instance, the simplest
living cell, the mycoplasma,

has about 600
kilobytes of information.

It's like an alphabet; the letters
do not say anything at all.

It has to be in the right position,
and it has to be interpreted,

and that is what is going on
in the cells of living beings.

You see, there's nothing in
chemistry alone that would

put any sort of coded
information into a molecule.

I mean, even if you could get
nucleotides to form in a chemical soup,

and even if you could get
them to form a chain,

you'd have nothing but a
random string of letters.

If you were to wait for a very
long time, and by chance

produce a coherent string
with a real instruction,

even then it would be just one clear
message in a sea of random messages.

This is the opposite of what life requires.

Life requires lots of
information, tightly controlled,

and protected--able to be copied, able
to be fixed when an error appears.

And all of this must be present
the first time life appears.

When the DNA was first decoded, and they,

scientists started looking
at the simplest living cell,

they imagined that possibly we could have
a cell with a couple of hundred proteins.

Well it's up to over 400 now,

and even the origin of one of these
proteins by some chance process,

it's not going to happen

even on a universal timescale, and even if
every atom in the universe was an experiment

for every possible molecular vibration in
the supposed billions of years of time,

you would never get one protein, let
alone hundreds, let alone the DNA

to actually code for them. I mean,

the idea of origin of life by natural
processes is a preposterous idea,

absolutely preposterous idea.

Many evolutionists claim that the origin of
life is not part of evolution, but come on.

They believe that all living
things came from a single cell,

which in turn came from a primordial soup.

So they have to have a theory of life
coming from non-living chemicals,

otherwise materialism is dead in the water.

For evolutionists to believe
in chemical evolution,

this is not a position they got from science,
but a position they got from blind faith,

they're basically having
to believe in miracles

because it's not real chemistry
that they can appeal to.

Evolutionists often accuse creationists
of believing in a 'God of the gaps'

where they say that we claim
'God just did it that way'

when we run into some process
that we don't quite understand.

But very often when faced with
an unanswerable question,

a problem like the origin of life,

evolutionists invoke their
own 'Darwin of the gaps'.

See, everything we know about
the laws of chemistry,

about genetics, and statistics,
and information theory,

argues against any life from non-life idea.

But an evolutionist must believe
that scientific laws are violated

for life to arise from
non-living chemicals.

That sounds like faith to me.

I think one of the biggest challenges for
evolution is the origin of the first life,

life supposedly coming forth
from a chemical soup.

Scientists have had decades to
reproduce this in a laboratory,

but they haven't been able to do that,

despite all the time they've had,
despite all the great equipment.

And I think that's tremendous evidence that
life can't evolve from a chemical soup.

Many evolutionists admit
that life from non-living

chemicals is a huge problem
for life on earth,

so they've resorted to the idea that
maybe life came from outside the earth,

and this is called panspermia.

Now there are two versions of
this one: one is undirected,

which just says that chemical
evolution happened somewhere,

and life was naturally
seeded onto earth somehow.

Now this doesn't actually solve the problem
of life from non-living chemicals,

it just puts it into the unknown.

In fact, it puts it beyond science.

So you might say, it's a Darwin of
the gaps theory, not science at all.

Another idea is called directed panspermia,

where you have intelligent aliens seeding
life from outer space onto earth.

Francis Crick, the primary
discoverer of DNA,

is one of those scientists who realized
it can't happen spontaneously.

So he, like other scientists,
are imagining that

intelligent life from outer
space brought life to earth,

and they find that more credible than
the idea of spontaneous origin of life.

Evolutionists who resort to
directed panspermia are in fact

tacitly conceding that life
was intelligently designed.

The only difference is their designer
is an alien, not the God of the Bible.

Of course, this is most convenient for them

because the God of the Bible has certain
moral requirements, while aliens don't.

So they can have all the benefits of a
designer without the moral obligations to him.

Studying the origin of
life is totally ridiculous

in the light of our modern
understanding of the

most simple living cells
and what it needs.

I was in a meeting recently
where an origin of

life scientist was telling
about his studies,

and a professor next to
me whispered to my ear,

'What on earth does this
have to do with science'!

This whole study of origins has more
to do with history than science.

We're told the fossil record is supposed to
be a record of evolutionary history on earth.

But notably absent from any rock anywhere
is any trace of a primordial soup.

If chemical evolution occurred
over millions of years,

and if rocks form slowly and
fossils accumulate slowly,

there should be a record of this
somewhere in the fossil record.

A lot of people seem to believe that
fossils take a very long time to form,

thousands, millions of
years in order to form.

But the existence of a fossil
by itself is actually

proof that something
happened very, very fast.

When an organism dies, there's all parts of the
environment that are trying to destroy it.

There's the weather, there's erosion,

there's scavengers and other animals that are
going to come and tear apart your fossil.

But as soon as the organism dies,
if it's covered by sediment

and protected from the environment, then
the process of fossilization can start.

And we know from modern
examples that fossilization,

as far as converting the
bone or the shell into rock,

can actually happen very, very
fast, a matter of months.

Since we know that fossils have to form
quickly in order to become fossils at all,

we also know, therefore, that the
rocks that the fossils are formed in

must themselves have been
formed quickly as well.

So creationists who study the geological
record and the geological column

can agree with some of our
evolutionary colleagues on something:

the order of the fossils.

But what we're going to
disagree with is about the ages

that my evolutionary colleagues
ascribe to those rocks,

not the order of them themselves.

Charles Darwin said the fossils
record would show evolution,

but in fact at the time it didn't,

and he predicted it would,

but you know it doesn't.

And the prediction he made has not
been borne out by research since.

We've found millions of
fossils, and we do not find

the fine gradation of change
of one basic kind to another,

and in fact it's a huge problem
for the whole idea of evolution.

It is the big-level
differences between animals,

these phylum-level differences,

that should give us our best examples
of evolutionary transitions.

You need more transitions in order to split

from something like a jellyfish into
something like an arthropod, like a lobster.

It's precisely these big-level differences

that have the smallest amount of
evidential basis for Darwinian evolution.

One of the most intractable problems in
paleontology is one of Darwin's own devising.

When Darwin wrote The Origin of the
Species, he knew of a group of fossils

low in the geological
column called the Cambrian.

Since Darwin believed that all
animals shared common ancestors,

he believed that the animals
in the Cambrian must

therefore have ancestors
in the rocks below them.

To put the Cambrian explosion in context,
let's think of earth history like a football field,

on an old-age system, the
beginning of the earth at

one end zone is four and a
half billion years ago,

and the present is at the other end zone.

The Cambrian starts all the way
across the field at the

opposing team's 12-yard line
and extends for one full yard.

The Cambrian explosion though,
where we see the first

appearance of all these
different animal body plans,

these phylum-level divisions,

happens in just 4 inches.

It's not even the whole yard.

So in the four inches that is the Cambrian
explosion, this narrow slice of time in geology,

we have the first appearance of
animals that are as different

from each other as mollusks and
clam shells from jellyfish.

These are huge anatomical differences that
are supposed to happen in a window of time

where in other areas, you're
arguing about whether or not

humans and gorillas
shared a common ancestor.

A small difference anatomically
compared to the huge body-level

divisions that we see first
appear in the Cambrian.

But you know, there are no precursors to the
Cambrian fauna in the Precambrian rocks.

The Precambrian supposedly represents a
couple of billion years of history, yet

it shows nothing more than
blue-green algae and bacteria,

maybe a few other things thrown
in late in the Precambrian.

So one thing we hear a lot is that maybe
the ancestors of the Cambrian fauna

were soft-bodied so they didn't leave
any remains behind to be fossilized.

And Darwin in The Origin
of Species, he said,

"No organism wholly soft can be preserved."

But that is nonsense, for even he knew

fossil sand ripples and even raindrops
are preserved in the rocks.

And today, we have fossils of jellyfish,
of worms, right from the fossil record.

While the Cambrian explosion stands as strong
evidence against evolutionary predictions,

it's actually exactly what creationists
would expect out of the fossil record.

If Noah's Flood created the bulk of
our fossils and sedimentary rocks,

then we would expect that as
the flood starts in the

ocean and drives its way
on towards the continents

that it would pick up
these marine ecosystems,

burying them in sediment
and driving them up

onto the land, where they would become
fossilized and become sedimentary rocks.

The thing about the Cambrian explosion
that's so interesting is that

when we look and see in
those first four inches,

all these different animal phyla appear,

it's a complex and complete ecosystem.

This isn't a single organism that shows up

and then later on another
organism and then later another.

It's an entire suite of organisms
that were in one place,

were catastrophically buried, and their
remains were driven onto the continents.

The basic features of the fossil
record: sudden appearance.

There's an absence of
transitions leading to the

first appearance of a
particular kind of animal.

And the other feature is that fossils
basically stay the same within their kinds.

There might be some
variations, but they're small

compared with what is to be anticipated if
evolution from amoebas to people happened.

Evolutionists argue that the
fossil record's incomplete,

but this is no longer an
adequate answer to this,

because we have millions of
fossils that have been found.

And the more fossils we find, the more clear
it is that the transitions are missing.

The idea of transitional
species or missing links

has been embedded in the public's
mind for over 100 years.

Most of the early finds have not
withstood the test of time like

Piltdown man, Nebraska man

And there are a lot of claims
circulating today, but

most of those, most of the current claims,

fall into the creationist idea
of variation within a kind.

If I were to pick three really famous
fossils, just from the last decade,

I'd have to choose Ida,
which was clearly a lemur,

Puijila, which supposedly
is the ancestor to seals,

but which really
looks like a modern otter,

and Tiktaalik, which they tried to use as a
club to beat the creationists over the head.

But then some evolutionists
found footprints

of a four-legged animal
in some rocks in Poland

that the evolutionists had dated to
millions of years older than Tiktaalik. So

not only was Tiktaalik not transitional,

but right now there's no
candidate for that transition.

What we do see is evidence
for the creationist orchard

where you get variation within a kind,

you get a number of different horse
species, and these sorts of things.

And so the horse fossil record fits
in beautifully with the concept of a

basic created horse kind developing
into different species over time.

Now throw into this mix what
are called living fossils

and the evolutionary
picture gets quite fuzzy.

These are fossils that are
allegedly millions of years old,

yet look extremely similar to the supposed
descendants that are still alive today.

Horseshoe crabs have been around
in their basic configuration

for what's claimed millions of years.

The same with dragonflies, the
coelacanth and many, many other things.

Now if all these creatures have not changed
over millions of years, where's the evolution!

These cross supposed 500 million years
of time, according to evolution.

You have things like
jellyfish and starfish,

and all sorts of things that actually

are the same today as in the fossil
record hundreds of millions of years ago.

And in that timeframe, a worm
has changed into you and me,

according to evolution,

for which there's no fossil record
showing that that happened.

A lot of people claim that

maybe the animal is perfectly adapted to its
environment, so it didn't need to change.

But that is silly. I mean,

some of those species have
survived the greatest episodes

of climate change and disaster
in Earth history, like

the supposed meteor that hit the earth 65
million years ago and killed off the dinosaurs or

the end Permian extinction event where 99%
of all species on Earth supposedly went extinct.

There has been no constant
environment in which to live

during all of Earth history, so animals

had to evolve to their
surroundings in order to survive.

But also, other species have supposedly been
evolving ways to eat the older species, so

how could they possibly have stayed the same
as everything else changed around them!

One major evolutionary icon is the alleged
evolution of humans from ape-like creatures,

but I don't know any paleontologist
today that would be able to draw that

smooth transitional series
we saw in previous decades.

There are so many supposed species in the
evolutionary tree of human history today,

it's hard even to list them all. But let's just
pick the most popular one, Neanderthal Man.

He was originally depicted
as a half monkey,

a distant relative, a real caveman.

But today, everything has changed.

Different paleontologists are trying to make
the case that Neanderthals painted in caves,

ceremonially buried their dead with their
heads pointing towards the sunrise,

made musical instruments, had
the controlled use of fire,

searched the landscape for rare
minerals in order to make cosmetics.

That is not the Neanderthal
Man I grew up with.

And now that the genetics
revolution is upon us,

we've been able to construct 5 or
6 different Neanderthal genomes.

There is strong evidence that modern
man and Neanderthals interbred,

meaning we are the same
species, by definition.

Neanderthals are just a family group that
lived in Europe and Asia after the Flood.

But the evolutionist says that these Neanderthal
skeletons are tens of thousands of years old.

But we're still finding DNA in them! As a
geneticist, that's not supposed to be!

That is shocking. But
what's even more shocking

is finding soft tissues in fossils
that are supposedly much, much older.

For about a decade now, there's
been mounting evidence of

soft tissue that's still
preserved inside dinosaur bones.

Now if these bones are supposed to be
millions and millions of years old,

the soft tissues like blood
vessels and red blood cells

and other materials should
have long since degraded.

But starting in 2005 with the discovery of a
dinosaur leg bone from Tyrannosaurus Rex,

there were these different soft tissues that
were in there, and they were still stretchy.

A blood vessel that could
actually be taken with tweezers

and stretched out would
snap back into place.

More material was discovered,

different types of proteins have
been identified in laboratories,

and now there are mounting
evidences coming in from

a wide range of types of different fossil
animals from the so-called age of dinosaurs.

We've got Tyrannosaurus Rex, Triceratops,
a duck-billed dinosaur, even eggs

from sauropod dinosaurs, those are
the long-necked ones, from China.

And so with mounting evidence now
from not only North America,

and not just one unit in North
America, but from multiple

levels of rock in the record,
and from different continents,

soft tissue is being identified more and
more by more researchers in paleontology.

In 2013, a remarkable paper
was published documenting

the discovery of bone cells
and DNA from dinosaur bone.

Now they proved the DNA with three
independent chemical tests,

and they also found DNA in
certain parts of the cell,

which is just what we would expect
to find if it was in a cell nucleus.

Also they found proteins called histones,

and that's where DNA is coiled up in

dinosaur cells. That would not be found in
bacteria, so this rules out contamination.

So the recent experiments
on how fast DNA breaks down

shows that even under ideal conditions,
it would not last anywhere near

the time since dinosaurs were
meant to have become extinct.

These ideal conditions are
temperatures well below freezing.

Now in real life, dinosaurs were meant
to have lived in very warm climates,

and warmth means that DNA would
decay even more quickly.

Therefore the presence
of DNA in dinosaur bones

is very strong evidence against
the millions-of-years timescale.

150 years after Darwin, the
transitions are still missing,

and the fossil record still doesn't
reflect evolution over billions of years.

But the rocks in which
the fossils are found

are often used as evidence for
billions of years of time.

Well originally, the early
geologists believed the Bible,

and they took the biblical account of
history as being what really happened,

and so based on that they
came to the idea that

things happened quickly during
the creation and the Flood;

they even developed some geological
histories based on that idea.

Later on, at the very
turn of the 19th century,

you start to get people who are
arguing that geological processes

from the rock record can only be explained

using processes that we see
around us today in the world.

And so when we see people
like Hutton or Lyell

who argue for what's now
called uniformitarianism,

they would look at the geological events
that were happening in the world, say,

how often a river flooded and how much
sediment it deposited in its flood plain.

They would then say, okay if there's

1 inch worth of sediment that was deposited
this year, and next year there's another inch,

then when I look at the geological
column and I see a rock unit

that looks kind of like a
flood zone of a river,

I should only use the rates that
I see today in the modern realm

to estimate the amount of time
that it took to create that rock.

From a myriad of different
philosophical and theological reasons,

uniformitarianism took over the place
of catastrophism as they argued

effectively in many cases
that catastrophes,

which were not greatly experienced
in a day-to-day realm,

could not be applied to
the geological record.

Their arguments I think were wrong,

but they were effective
and they won the day.

And it would be over 100 years that
a strict view of uniformitarianism,

the slow rates and gradual processes,

could be the only explanations in geology.

It wouldn't be until the
middle to late 1900s

that we start to see geologists prying themselves
from the shackles of uniformitarianism

and allowing catastrophes to
get a place back in geology.

It's not as far as we would
like, it's not Noah's Flood,

but they're starting to recognize that
catastrophes do most of the work in geology.

Glacial erosion is usually associated

with smooth surfaces and grooves
left by the glaciers themselves.

But there is another erosional feature
which is very interesting, namely,

what happens to the meltwater that
accumulates at the foot of the glaciers.

It sometimes bursts as channelized
flow like huge torrents.

As they move fast and they carry
a lot of sediments with them,

they are capable of cutting gaps
like this one in this ridge.

So this was a continuous ridge,
which was literally cut

by the torrent that came
from underneath the glacier.

In 1980 there was an
eruption of Mt St Helens,

and from the single eruption,

a pyroclastic flow, that is
a flow of hot gas and ash

as it erupted, it left
behind some 25 feet, some

8 meters of sediment,
which was finely layered,

and this was deposited in a very
rapid time, less than a day.

From what was learned at Mt St
Helens, we can now understand that

there's all sorts of geological processes
that can happen in the blink of an eye.

From the formation of
layered sedimentary units,

we can find that there are
tens of feet of rock unit

that can be formed with fine laminations
and thin layerings in between them,

may be formed in a matter of days.

The erosion of small canyons that
are like miniature laboratories

for understanding how larger canyon systems
like the Grand Canyon or the other

large canyons of the American
Southwest have been formed.

Those formed in one case a day, and
in another case a couple of months.

These processes give us a window into
understanding the larger-scale catastrophes

and help us model these
larger-scale catastrophes when we

try and apply our knowledge
of geology to Noah's Flood.

As a geologist, trying to wrap
my mind around how much energy

Noah's Flood actually produced
is even hard to do for me.

But one thing that creation
geologists recognize

is that the modern
catastrophes that we have,

while they give us a tiny glimpse,

they really don't come close
to the scope and scale

of the energy that's being
released during the Flood.

As the fountains of the
great deep break open,

this means that the earth itself is
being fractured, broken, mashed,

and continents are
moving--vertically, horizontally,

moving around with respect to
one another, and as a result,

tsunami after tsunami after tsunami

keeps hitting the continents
and driving floodwaters

over the top of them.
The rain is unending.

The energy to produce earthquakes and
various types of geological catastrophes

would be without parallel
in the modern world.

And so right now we look
at the movement of the

continents and it's very very little.
But during the Flood,

we're not talking about
continental drift anymore.

We're talking about continental sprint,

where the continents are
moving at rapid paces

through the floodwaters and causing
all sorts of geological havoc.

During the singular event of the Noah's
flood, catastrophic plate tectonics predicts

that the pre-flood ocean crusts
would be dragged down

into the mantle in a process
we call subduction.

Because that happened very recently,
only a few thousand years ago,

the cold ocean crust should still be cold

even though it has descended
into the deep, hot mantle.

Modern seismologists have
discovered that there are indeed

huge big cold slabs of rock down
near the core of the earth itself

in areas that should have warmed up if
millions and millions of years' worth of time

were what've brought those slabs
down instead of Noah's Flood.

The fact that we have cold slabs of rock
is a confirmation of flood geology,

not of old-age geology.

Another amazing prediction
that has been confirmed

in catastrophic plate tectonics
is rapid magnetic field reversal.

The earth's magnetic field draws
our compass needles towards north.

But sometimes in earth history,
it draws it towards the south.

Old-age geologists believe
that magnetic reversals

have been happening for
hundreds of millions of years

and would have taken
thousands of years to occur.

Ironically, it was actually
old-earth geologists

working in the Pacific Northwest
that found confirming evidence

in support of rapid
magnetic field reversals

that are required for Noah's Flood.

They were taking a look at lava flows,

and looking at lava flows that would only
take a couple of weeks in order to form.

They took measurements of the skin of the
lava to see the magnetic orientation.

They were expecting to see almost no
change as they went deeper into the lava

where the interior should
shift only slightly.

Instead what they found is
that the outside skin of

the lava pointed north, and
the inside pointed south.

So we have confirming
evidence from lava flows

that the switch of the magnetic
field has to happen rapidly,

which is exactly what
flood geologists expect.

It's amazing to think we can
find marine fossils like algae

in the very lowest rocks
in the geologic column,

and marine fossils on top of the
highest mountains like Mt Everest.

Well how did they get there!

Evolutionists would say that slow
gradual uplift over millions of years

led to the formation of the mountain ranges
and pushed the fossils up along with them.

But there are some things about modern
mountain belts that we see that

don't seem to fit with
this conventional view.

Rock is brittle; it
doesn't bend very easily

if you try and bend it, it breaks.

Now granted, on a big scale,

you might be able to get some pretty
big bends out of a large rock.

But these bends are tight and close, and you
can walk from one end of them to the other.

This type of bend and folding
without breaking the brittle rock

means that maybe it wasn't brittle
rock at the time of its formation.

These might have been
much softer materials;

after all, they were laid
down during Noah's Flood,

they've been compacted down,

started off horizontal, but then
as tectonic movements occurred,

they shifted and folded them while
they were probably still soft.

So when we look at it this
way, what we realize is that

the really tall mountain chains, the
Alps, the Rockies, the Himalayas,

they didn't exist before the Flood.

The whole reason that they
exist is because of the Flood.

So basically, when we look
at the geology of the earth,

we find that present processes
do not explain what we see.

Rather, what we see points to
catastrophic processes in the past,

and when we think about
what those could be,

it fits exactly with the account in Genesis

of Noah's Flood which
destroyed the whole earth.

The Flood wipes away millions of
years from the geological record.

Those millions of years are
necessary for evolution to occur.

No millions of years, no evolution.

Many people are of the
opinion that scientists

can make direct measurements
using these techniques

of billions of years ages for rocks,

and they use this then to discredit
the history of the Bible.

And this is really not the case.

The physics behind radiometric dating
is relatively straightforward.

We have a radioactive
element called a parent,

which transforms over time into a non-
radioactive element called the daughter.

And this happens with a characteristic
rate referred to as a half-life.

That's the length of time that
it takes half the parent element

to transform into an equal
amount of the daughter element.

So over time the amount of
parent in the rock decreases

and the amount of daughter
in the rock increases.

Scientists can use very
powerful machines to measure

either directly the amounts of
these two elements or their ratio,

and this ratio then can be used in a theoretical
calculation along with the half-life

to calculate an alleged age for the sample.

Let me give you some examples.

Radioactive carbon-14
decays to nitrogen-14.

Uranium decays to lead.

Potassium-40 decays to argon-40.

And all of these are used
in radiometric dating.

We don't actually measure
the age with these methods,

we actually are measuring the amount of
these isotopes in the rocks or fossils.

And it is an interpretation
using certain assumptions

about these amounts that give us the age.

But the age is actually
not measured directly.

For many radiometric dating
techniques, one of the assumptions is

that there is no daughter element
present in the rock when it is formed,

which of course we can't know

unless we're actually there and
can take a sample of the rock

immediately after it was
formed and do an analysis.

Now a small amount of daughter present
at the time the rock is formed

if the rock is actually
billions of years old,

will not have a very significant
impact on the calculated age.

But if the rock is actually
only a few thousand years old,

even a very, very tiny
amount of daughter present

at the time the rock is formed
will have a huge impact

and give the rock appearances
of being billions of years old.

Another assumption of
radiometric dating is that

the rate at which the parent
element transforms to

the daughter element has
been constant over time.

Now this has generally been borne
out by experiments in the past,

but recently, some scientists
in the US and Europe

determined that the transformation
rate of at least some elements,

notably cobalt-60, cesium-137,
silicon-32, and radium-226

do indeed vary with time.

Now they don't understand why
this is, but they have noted

that the rate varies with the distance
between the earth and the sun.

Now the importance of this with respect to
radiometric dating is that the assumption

that the transformation rate is constant

is clearly not true in the short term,

and therefore may well be
not true in the long term,

which of course would
invalidate the calculated ages.

Some additional evidence for this

is an experiment that was spearheaded
by the Institute for Creation Research

in which some scientists found

zircon crystals with unexpectedly
large amounts of helium in them.

Now helium is a by-product of decay
of uranium-238 to lead-206.

And based on the ratio of lead
to uranium in these zircon crystals,

the calculated radiometric age
was 1 and a half billion years.

But helium escapes from these
crystals very quickly,

so if the crystals really were 1
and a half billion years old,

then essentially all of the
helium should have escaped.

So the large amounts of
helium that were found

indicate that the crystals can't
be 1 and a half billion years old

and maybe the transformation from uranium
to lead-206 was faster in the past.

A third assumption is that
the rock has remained

a closed system from the
time of its formation.

What that means is that no parent
element or daughter element

has been either added to or removed
from the rock during its history

by any number of potential
chemical or physical processes.

For radiometric dating to be valid, all
of these assumptions must be true.

If they are not, the
results are not reliable.

The standard way that an old-age geologist

provides a date for a fossil, say that
dinosaurs died out 65 million years old,

is not by dating the fossil itself, but by
dating the rocks that are nearby the fossil,

and using the dates of
the rocks as a bracket.

They'll use radioactive
dating methods to say that

this rock is 65 million years old,
there's dinosaurs underneath them,

therefore the dinosaurs can be no
younger than 65 million years old.

An interesting question to ask

would be whether or not radioactive dating
methods that are applied to the fossils

actually correspond to the radioactive
dating methods that apply to the rocks.

If the two are in agreement,
then perhaps an old-age

geologist has a strong argument
for the age of the fossils.

But if you get two different ages for things
that are supposed to be the same age,

then either one is right, the other
is right, or neither one is correct.

Many people think carbon
dating can be used to date

things that are millions or
even billions of years old.

However, because of its half-life, carbon
dating can only be used theoretically

to date things that are at most a
few tens of thousands of years old,

because after that length of time,
so much of the carbon-14 has decayed

that there's not enough of it left to be
detected, even with today's modern instruments.

If the whole earth was pure carbon-14,

it could only last about a million years before
it's all gone and we couldn't detect it.

And yet, we repeatedly
find carbon-14 in objects

which are claimed to be millions and even
billions of years old, including diamonds.

But the fact that we're finding carbon-14

shows they can't be millions
or billions of years old.

So carbon-14 is in fact a very strong
ally of the biblical timescale,

and strong evidence against the
millions of years of evolution.

What dating of fossils
has shown us over time

is that there is carbon-14
in the fossil material.

This is true whether or not
they are fossils of mosasaurs,

or fossils of seashells, or
fossils of petrified wood,

or any of the varieties of
fossil fuels that we have,

especially coal, oil, and natural gas.

Samples of these have been
analyzed since the 1970s,

and consistently show us ages

that there shouldn't be if they
were in fact millions of years old.

Coal is a particularly
interesting case for carbon-14.

Coal is the remains of plants
that have been compressed,

and so they were part of the ecosystem,

had an active connection to carbon-14.
It's found globally,

and it's found throughout
the geological record.

When creation scientists sampled

coal seams from different places and
analyzed them for the amount of carbon-14,

they found that regardless
of where they were collected

or from what layers of
geology they were found,

they all registered statistically
the same amount of carbon-14.

So with the coal seams, rather
than providing evidence

of gradual deposition and formation of coal
over tens or hundreds of millions of years,

the identical amounts of carbon-14 in
all of the samples that were collected

actually shows that they were all
buried within the recent past.

Even though radiometric dating seems
like a very scientific process,

we've seen from measurements that it
produces highly erroneous results.

And due to the unknowable assumptions
that are behind its normal application,

it is unreliable and
untrustworthy in many cases.

You know, the big bang is often
presented as though it's a done deal,

that it's well-understood,
that the evidence all points

inexorably to this whole picture of the
past and vast millions of years and so on.

The big bang is supposedly
based on the idea that when we

observe the universe around us we see

that the galaxies and stars
are all receding from us.

Now if you were to wind that backwards,

it looks like it would all
condense down into one place,

and people can figure
out that it would have

14 or 15 billion years ago, it all exploded,
and now what we're seeing is the aftermath.

But it turns out that in fact the big bang

fails to explain the observations in
a number of very fundamental ways.

We are told today we live
in a universe that's

made up of 96% of stuff
we know nothing about.

We are told that 4%, the other
4% which we do know about

is the stuff like normal matter,
the chairs we're sitting on,

the room, the earth, the solar
system, everything we can see

is normal matter, and the rest is
this dark matter and dark energy.

Steven Chu, the energy minister,

Obama's energy minister, speaking at a

Australian Institute of Physics conference
to high school students, says, quote almost,

"We know nearly everything we
need to know about the universe"

"except for a few small details: what is
dark energy and what is dark matter!"

That's 96% of the stuff of the
universe we know nothing about.

Cosmology is not real science in the sense
of regular repeatable testable science,

because cosmology is about a one-off
event, supposedly the big bang

it happened one-off in the
past, we can't repeat it,

we've got no other universe to test it
with, we've only got this one universe.

So really cosmology falls out of
the definition of real science.

The universe, according to big
bang, had an origin in time.

They say it's only 13 billion years old,

therefore we can only see at
most 13 billion light-years.

This means we only can
see a drop in the ocean.

We have to make massive assumptions
about the rest of the universe.

And what if, what if we just happen to
be living in a little local bubble,

and the rest of the universe
was totally different!

Many people say that creationists
have an issue with light travel,

that is, how can we see
light from distant stars

when the earth is only 6,000 years old!

But the big bang, in fact, has
its own light travel problem.

This has to do with the cosmic
microwave background radiation,

which is supposedly the
afterglow of the big bang,

and which has been observed to
have a very uniform temperature

no matter where you look in space.

And there just hasn't been
enough time for the energy

to be transferred across space

to make all this temperature
uniform to the extent that it is.

And that's called the horizon problem.

Now there is an interesting
explanation or attempt

to find a solution to this,

and it's called the inflationary period.

So some incredibly short instant
after this initial big bang,

the universe expanded by
massive orders of magnitude

and then somehow or other this period
of inflation, as it's called, stopped.

And so it starts for no particular reason,
and it stops for no particular reason,

and by the way, during it,
gravity has to work in reverse,

so rather than matter being attracted
to matter, it has to repel it.

And so there's this amazing
story is told to try and

patch up this glaring problem
that the big bang has.

The inflation proponents have
no good physical model for

this faster-than-light
expansion; it's a fudge factor.

But the Bible teaches several times
that God stretched out the heavens.

The uniformity of background
temperature is consistent

with the universe being upheld by a
single Creator outside time and space.

Furthermore, it's not just a
"God did it" explanation,

creationist physicists have developed
multiple competing models of this expansion

using Einsteinian general relativity.

The big bang model basically says

that high redshift objects are distant,

low redshift objects are nearby.

Astronomers like Halton Arp and others

have found many, many
exceptions to this case

where they have found high redshift quasars

physically associated with
low redshift galaxies.

And when I say physically
associated, I mean we see

bridges of stars and gas
connecting the two,

X-ray emitting gas,

There's one very famous case, NGC 7319,

where we find a high redshift quasar in front
of an active low-redshift spiral galaxy,

which should not happen
in a big bang universe.

There's something wrong;

there's a serious problem
that has to be answered.

There are a lot of these
anomalies where you have

objects with vastly different redshifts that
have somehow connected with each other.

This should not be possible if
redshift was a measure of distance.

But clearly they are connected, which means

that the standard interpretation
of redshift is wrong,

and this undermines the big bang itself.

If the theory is the incorrect
description of what we observe,

when we try to apply it to what we observe

we'll have to make up fictitious
entities to make the theory fit.

Dark matter is invoked to
explain peculiar motion

in spiral galaxies, and
in clusters and so on.

Dark energy is used to explain
this anomalous acceleration

of the universe when they use these
bright supernova light sources.

And inflation is used to
smooth out the universe,

to make it appear the way we see it today.

But these unknowns are not
experimentally verified,

and in my opinion never will be.

The big bang theory has a
number of secular objectors.

In 2004, 33 of these cosmology dissenters

wrote an open letter
published in New Scientist,

and over 100 more cosmologists
have added to this letter.

And they said, among other things,

"An open exchange of ideas is lacking,"and
"doubt and dissent are not tolerated."

"In no other field of physics
would this continual"

"recourse to new hypothetical
objects be accepted"

"as a way of bridging the gap
between theory and observation."

So you might ask this question, why
with all the modern technology,

supercomputers, we have large telescopes with
adaptive optics, we have space telescopes,

why haven't we found the
observational evidence to firmly

establish the big bang without
invoking all these unknowns!

To believe in the big bang,
you have to take it on faith.

There's certain things you
have to assume as given,

without which you can't
even make a calculation.

How do you get to the ludicrous
situation of 96% of

the universe made up of stuff
we know nothing about!

Cosmology is not experimental science.

In fact, I would go so far as to
say cosmology is not even science.

It's a philosophy, it's a religion, a worldview.
It's a belief system.

It's not science at all.

I would say that the grand theory of evolution
is a mixture of science and philosophy.

And the philosophy is more dominant
nowadays than the science.

Science is used to back up the
philosophy and naturalism.

What I find is that most
people, most evolutionists

have never critically
examined their own position.

It's such a sacred cow,
even in their own minds,

it's unthinkable to start
examining the weaknesses.

It's an amazing stronghold.

And so, I guess I'm trying to suggest
why the creation!evolution debate isn't

the sort of logical argument that you'll get
among scientists when they're discussing,

say, the role of sunlight
in triggering flowering.

But with the creation!evolution issue,

if evolution is not true,

then it means we were created. And
if biblical creation is true,

then it means it's the God of the
Bible to whom we're accountable to.

And that for many people is a no-go zone.

You know, if you want to consider
yourself part of the intellectual elite,

you must be a Darwinist,
it's that simple. It's like

It's like the fee you pay
to get into the club.

And so this is a very,
very strong motivator.

And there's a flip side to that,
which is if you don't hold it,

you will be ridiculed and treated as if
you're really stupid and really ignorant.

And so the fear of ridicule
is just palpable on campuses.

There are many, many scientists
who actually realize

that there are major problems
with Darwinian theory,

but they are silent because they
know if they speak their doubts,

they will get in trouble.

They won't get grants,
they won't get funding,

they won't be politically
correct, they won't have friends,

all the stuff that makes for academic
success goes away if you question Darwin.

So if evolution is true,
many honest evolutionists

acknowledge there is no
rational basis for morality.

It opens up the prospect of
all sorts of things, like

what really is ultimately
wrong with abortion!

I mean, after all, if you've got an
unwanted pregnancy, why not terminate it!

What does it really matter, ultimately!

What if someone is old and unproductive!

They're a burden on society; society has
to support them, feed them, care for them.

Why not just help them along the
way, get rid of them, you know!

Now there's some moral implications there,

if the Creator made us, then He owns us
and has a right to make the rules for us.

But if things make themselves,
then there's no right or wrong,

we're just really bags
of rearranged pond scum.

So what is murder! It's just one bag of
chemicals impacting another bag of chemicals.

Science can't tell you that
murder is right or wrong.

It can tell you that this
action will kill something;

it won't tell you that it's right or wrong.

This issue of evolution affects
so many things in people's lives.

It affects the way they
feel about themselves.

It affects the way people
treat one another.

It affects their attitude
to motivation for living.

It affects the way they
regard law in their country.

It affects the value that they
place on other human beings.

Now many critics of Christianity
point to various religious wars,

the Crusades, the Inquisitions.
Now first of all,

these people were acting inconsistently
with the teachings of Christ.

Second, the numbers are minuscule

compared to the atrocities
committed by atheist regimes

in the 20th century.

Now evolution has been used
as a basis for society,

and that society was the
society of Nazi Germany.

Now Hitler was definitely trying to
put Darwin's ideas into practice,

like the idea of survival of the
fittest, which means death of the unfit.

Hitler believed that some races were
more highly evolved than others,

the Jewish race was subhuman, he believed.

And so if we take the ideas of evolution,
we attempt to apply them to ourselves,

the result is not pretty.

It's hideous; it's evil.

Now I'm actually Jewish, ethnically.

And of course, my people were
almost wiped out in Europe;

6 million of us were butchered
by this evolutionary philosophy.

And handicapped people were thought
of as being less than human.

And Hitler's own propaganda films said,

"we have sinned grievously
against the law of natural selection"

"by allowing the handicapped
people to live."

So Hitler replaced the
Judeo-Christian ethic of

sanctity of innocent life
made in God's image,

with an evolutionary ethic
that whatever is good for

the evolution of the master
race is good for society.

After the war, the leading
Nazis were put on trial.

But some of them claimed they
did nothing wrong because

"the laws of our country said
it was okay to kill Jews...

So on what grounds can
you put them on trial!

Only if there's a higher
morality than national law.

But where can this morality come from,
if not from the Creator of humanity!

If we're just rearranged pond scum,
there's no such thing as a higher law.

Mankind is capable of doing all
sorts of evil against other men,

and to think that we might have kind
of gotten this out of our system,

or that we've structured our societies in
ways that this can't happen again is naïve.

If powerful people take on
ideas that are poisonous,

the result is the death of people.

The last century was the most
bloodstained of all of human history.

And this was not due to religious
wars some people like to point to,

it was at the hand of genocidal
mass-murdering governments

led by men like Hitler, and Stalin,
and Chairman Mao, and Pol Pot.

Now all these regimes had one thing in common,
and that was a devout belief in evolution

that's caused them to view people as
nothing more than animals to be culled.

I mean, Mao regarded himself
as a disciple of Darwin.

Hitler even wrote that struggle
is the father of all things.

"He who does not want to fight
in this world where eternal struggle"

"is the law of life
has no right to exist."

Now a lot of people say this is maybe
stretching things too far, but

what if you were one of the
ones consigned to the gulags

or the gas chambers or the firing squads,

and you also believed in evolution!

What basis would you have for saying that
they were wrong or acting inconsistently

for what both of you believe!

But have we really learned from history!

Because the same philosophy behind Nazi
Germany, which is evolution, is now

being mandated in the government schools
across the nations in the western world.

So should we be surprised that some
of the consequences will also follow!

Already we're having leading philosophers
and so-called bioethicists talking about

killing babies after birth
if they're not fit enough.

It's difficult to anticipate
what any one society would do

if it fully adopted an evolutionary view,

because if you try and derive morality
from the animal kingdom, for example,

there are all sorts of moralities
that you might choose.

Because when we look to
the natural world to

define a morality statement,
what we find is that

all sorts of different
animals make their way in

the world by doing all
sorts of different things.

While there's beauty in nature, there's also horror.
I mean, as Tennyson wrote,

it is 'red in tooth and claw'.

Darwin realized this, and that
seems to be behind his

rejection of a belief in an
altruistic God in heaven.

But it's not only in the natural
world we see these horrors,

there are also human-inflicted
terrors that can be

even on a mass scale, so
seeing these two types of evil

should cause a revulsion in people.

The reality is it should cause us to stop and
realize that something is actually wrong,

it shouldn't be like this. No one
is really reconciled with death.

Yet evolution says it is
all perfectly normal.

One of the biggest problems people
have with the God of the Bible is

that if there's a God of love,

how come there's so much death
and suffering in the world!

Now the Bible explains this, because
death and suffering in the Bible

is the result of man's rebellion
against their Creator.

But evolution says that death and suffering

are a natural part of what
produced man in the first place.

So evolution provides no comfort
for those who are suffering,

because suffering, sorry, is part of life.

It's part of the struggle for existence.

There's another reason why an evolutionist

will hold onto their belief system

even when all the fatal flaws are revealed,

and that is because if
evolution isn't true,

it strongly points them
in a different direction.

Because really if the universe
and life didn't self-create,

if it didn't happen spontaneously,
then there has to be a Creator,

and the Creator is not likely to be some
little green man from another galaxy,

the Creator is going to be Almighty God.

And so if God is truth, I'm
going to try and orient my life

in ways that conform with that,

whether that's the way I treat my wife and
my children, as a father and as a husband,

whether that's the way I treat my
old-age and evolutionary colleagues,

with the utmost of respect because
I believe that they are people

that are made in the image of God.

They're no different from me,

they're no different from
anyone else that I know.

And when we start off with that idea,

that God made all the people and
that He cares for all people,

if we let that sit in our
hearts for a little while,

it really affects the way that we treat
everyone we come in contact with.

Salvation doesn't result
from intellectual activity,

it doesn't come about
through figuring out God

or theology,

it is a spiritual transaction.

So for me, when I understood that
God made a perfect creation,

that there was a literal fall

and that now God is restoring
us by the sacrifice of His Son,

it really transformed my faith.

For although I was a
Christian for ten years,

I was an incredibly weak Christian.

And so every aspect of
my faith was transformed

by more fully submitting to
God and believing His Word.