Favorite Sermon Add to Playlist
Photo of Chad Kreuzer

5. Textbook Deceptions

Chad Kreuzer


Here we look at some of the greatest proofs in favor of evolution. We then look at how secular scientists reveal the errors of these icons of evolution. This session helps in finding answers to what you hear in school.


Chad Kreuzer

Anchor Point Films



  • December 30, 2016
    9:15 AM
Logo of Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US)

Copyright ©2016 Generation of Youth for Christ.

Free sharing permitted under the Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 (US) license.

The ideas in this recording are those of its contributors and may not necessarily reflect the views of AudioVerse.


Audio Downloads

This transcript may be automatically generated

This message was presented at the G. Y.C. twenty sixteen conference call. Has been heard in Houston Texas for other resources like this visit us online at W W W. Good morning everybody. Doing good. Well my name is Chad cruiser. And my wife and I have a ministry called Anchor Point films we produce documentaries we go on to archaeologists historians the login scholars. And we make documentaries with the purpose of reaching people with the message that message of the Bible the message of health. We specifically make things for the purpose of reaching people who may not be believers at all in the Bible. So that's generally with our films our target audience specifically for our documentaries that we that we make we have a series called Scripture mysteries where we the first first documentary The purpose is to establish the ability of the Bible. These documentaries some of them have been shown at you know secular university campus is to give evidence for the Bible for Jesus and for the truth that the Word of God contains And so the first one is to establish validity of the Bible and the next one is the status of validity of Jesus and we also have a series new documentary I should say specifically on health and it mixes together archaeology history and cultures of long jetty very fascinating information that can be beneficial to you for your own spiritual walk but it is also something that is. A blessing to share with people we made them so they'd be something that people would not be afraid or ashamed to share with their friends at school coworkers family member what have you. But before we begin this morning. I just want to say a prayer. So this power has for word of prayer. Heavenly Father we thank you so much for this opportunity to study science as we talk about your word. Also I pray that your Holy Spirit would guide us in the name of Jesus. And of our thesis text we've looked at over and over. Proverbs eighteen verse seventeen which says the one who states his case first seems right until the other comes and examines him now. If you've gone to specifically public schooling. And you were taught from a child in the different textbooks in the different scientific textbooks you were given a perspective of the origins of the world. Of the universe for that matter. And so you're given one side of the story and it's very convincing because they are not allowed to give you the other side of the story and I'm not even saying telling people they like in public schools that we have to teach people or God did it just tell people they got no but you can't even I mean it's almost like you shouldn't even tell the other side of the story and show how these things. Many of them have literally been proven wrong and the scientists at the top know that many of the things in the Texas we're just going to look at a few of them quickly. But if you study in two and I want to share with you a book that never even mentions God but it's a fantastic book on the issue of creation and evolution though it never mentions even spirituality within the book. It's a book called Icons of Evolution icons. I C O N S. Icons of Evolution. In this book is by a man by the name of Jonathan where. Yes quoting from him here in this presentation at least during some of it and what he does as he goes through some of the greatest icons of evolution some of the greatest proofs of evolution and reveals that even top scientists sometimes say that these things we just know they're not true yet. Guess where they remain. In the textbooks. Why. Because no other good proof has come out that could have stablished the theory of evolution as well as these icons. Yet we know they're not true. So they stay in the books for upwards of ninety years you'll see at least one of them has for ninety years scientists have known it's not true and it hasn't left the textbooks yet and it probably never will. By the way because how would they prove a theory that is losing ground day by day we're going to look at this don't take my word for it now. The reason this picture is so terrible because I just took it. You know a picture of a magazine when I was in the library in the Chicago library of the science and this issue of Science magazine not a Christian periodical it's interesting because when we think of life growing about in you know in the biology textbooks. We see something like the tree of life and if you've seen that you know a simpler what we think of a simpler creatures at the lower end and it slowly branches off till you get to maybe you know the ocean animals and then they begin to you know get to the you know they turn into land animals and it branches off and finally you get to mammals and then those mammals slowly turn into. You know their first quadrupeds for you know they walk on all fours and then they and they turn into by creatures they talk they turn into animals they can walk on two feet they finally turn into human beings so branches off into the various forms of life. And so the idea of natural selection. Is presented in text. And I think there is a form of natural selection but natural selection doesn't create new kinds of creatures. It can just weed out certain kinds of creatures. Meaning what will look into it. Don't take my word for it. Now I'm just going to read to you a quotation about natural selection here from Science magazine. There's just a picture of it here is natural selection is a central feature of neo-Darwinism is allowed in books in Wiley's theory but only as a minor influence see natural selection can affect survivorship says Brooks It can weed out some of the complexity and so slow down the information decay that results in speciation. It may have a stabilizing effect but it does not promote speciation So scientists are going to look at this and say OK yeah like for instance if certain animals have stronger be certain birds and birds of the same species have smaller beaks and their small beaks can break open certain nuts or seeds that they need in their area. The smaller ones may die off make sense. But does that mean the ones with bigger beaks are becoming another animal. No no new information was added by the way. No new information was added. So this doesn't mean that something new is happening it just means you lost some genetic information. This has nothing to do with additional genetic information yet we somehow imagine or know some of the animals have died off that's evolution. And if dying off certain portions of a species if that is evolution. Do you see how sometimes we see here part of the picture is very convincing like wow it's true animals with bigger beaks are more likely to survive. And the fittest survive or you have the fittest survive that's kind of obvious right. But that doesn't mean it's becoming a new creature in the scientists are looking in saying well maybe maybe this doesn't actually create new species maybe it just has a stabilizing effect on the animals. Is it is not a creative force. Yes many people have suggested it doesn't create new kinds of animals because certain animals die off because they're not as well adapted to certain environmental changes give you an example here are the anybody know what we call these They're the Darwin's finches I mean that's not the proper name for the birds but that's what we call them in the you know evolutionary textbooks right there. Darwin's finches and what's different about these birds you tell me. The beak size right so you have some of the some of the smaller beaks and you have significantly larger beaks but in certain situations larger beaks are beneficial maybe to break open certain nuts or seed to get the seed inside of a you know a shell but there are other time periods where actually having a smaller B. is beneficial. Now by the way these birds have within them than genetic information already understand I'm saying. Meaning some people have bigger noses like I have a bigger nose than many of you probably do. Some of you have smaller noses. We we have these different things. There can be benefits there can be negatives to these various different things but let's look at what we see here about this. Sorry about the cap locks there it says during the one nine hundred seventy S. on this in the Galapagos Islands on Daphne major That's one of the islands there received regular rainfall that supported an abundant food supply and a large Finch population. In normal rainy seasons such as that of nine hundred seventy six the island received about five inches of rain but in one thousand nine hundred seventy seven only about an inch fell. As a result of the drought the average beak of medium ground finches increased about five percent. So the beaks became about five per cent larger Now keep in mind was new genetic information produced during the. Season. No they already had the genetic information so nothing had really changed except some came out with a they were born with five percent larger beaks no new information. So we're not we're not creating some new kind of creature here. It's just the genetics that God put within them exhibited a larger being with the genetics they already had. So this isn't proof that new genes are coming about in this situation particularly anyway. And so yes they increased by five percent in Scientific American in ninety one. Peter Grant explains how this could happen at least in theory calling the increase in big depth during severe drought a select Shinn event. Grant estimated that the number of such events required to transform the medium ground into another species. So he just estimates he guesses the number is surprisingly small about twenty selection of events would have sufficed. If droughts occurred once a decade on average repeated directional selection at this rate with no selection in between droughts would transform one species into another within two hundred years now by the way if over time some of you know you kept going to a larger be larger be larger and it doesn't mean it keeps getting giant giant giant but meaning if you stick with the ones with larger beaks over time you may lose the genetic information for the smaller being. But notice you've only lost information you understand you're not creating a new species I mean in the sense of sure maybe at some point wouldn't be able to mate with the former's species but it didn't become something like better or or more more diversity within the genetics actually it lost its genes. So in a sense it would be devolution right. It would actually be losing it wouldn't be growing in information or adding new information. It is a loss of information. So this is very interesting. So it says after the one thousand nine hundred two. In eighty three El Nino with food once again plentiful the average beak size in medium ground finches what happened. It returned to its normal science. God made within creatures various genetics so that if they were in certain situations. If they were in a traumatic environment that something could happen that humans that animals could actually down to the situation. I mean you think about this human beings down in Africa. Now if a white man were running around in Africa for year after year with no shirt on and what's going to happen if I be riddled with cancer. But God gave us within humanity the ability to to have our genes do different things for us. What a benefit that men with darker skin that their skin can hold off with the more pigment can keep them they're less likely to get sunburn right. Less likely to have some of the diseases that would result from that God and God made these things within humanity when what a blessing that we have them. And so these Once again these the did not just continue to grow. Once the rain came back and the seeds were easier to open what happened. The birds went back to what they were originally right. So in so this is the thing. What they do is the extrapolation is like this they extrapolated OK so when there was a drought the beak size group and so they extrapolated that it would just keep doing this they would get higher and higher and higher larger you know. And finally they would be basically a different creature. That's what they imagine. In really I mean you know we call these hypotheses and things like that which sounds very scientific. But the reality is it's what we call guess and imagination. It takes imagination to imagine that what happened in the imagination was this but when they actually looked at the real evidence of what happened on the island. It went like this which means. Virtually nothing happens that makes sense. So the beat got tiny bit bigger. But then right after that it dropped to where it was and it just kind of went here right. I mean the reality is God made this these within creatures and and this natural selection is not creating a whole new kind of creature by the way nor by the way is it is it creating a whole new organ. Meaning what was it that changed the week it was bigger or smaller but it was still a beak You see I mean how could organs like a heart come about from a non heart. How could organs like a liver with the functions of a liver come about from a non liver. How could something like a brain come about from a known brain with all the nerves that have to interact to communicate with each other to receive stimuli from sense of touch from the visual cue from the eyes. How could how could the brain come about and have these things before it was a brain you see natural selection doesn't tell us that something could come about from a non something does it make sense. I'm not even using technical terminology but I think you get the point here. But what's interesting is so this is what happened. You had a tiny tiny five percent. You had a tiny bump in beak change and the beak size change and then it did absolutely nothing after that but the scientists will tell you that when you read your biology textbook you will read this. This is from a biology textbook from printers home life science. It says since Darwin published this book scientists of observed many examples of evolution in action and that sounds very convincing and seventy seven in this in a study of the one nine hundred seventy seven on the finches on Daphne major one of the top a go silent scientists observed the beak size could change very quickly by natural selection that year a little rain fell on the island and only twenty five millimeters you get the story and what happened. Says. Down here. Finches with larger and stronger beaks were better able to open the tough pods that were that were Finch then were finches with smaller beaks weaker beaks and many of the finches with the smaller beaks did not survive the drone the next year. More finches on the island had larger and stronger beaks but notice they don't tell you what happened after that they don't tell you that right after that with more rain it just went back to the way they were that's not there. You only get part of the story. The one who states this case first. Seems right until the other comes in exams and this is the tough thing that if you're in school and you never look into the answers of what you read in your textbooks. It will be thoroughly convincing and you'll think my poor parents. All these ignorant Christians these ignorant Adventists right. They just believe what they're told. Because you know God created the world in six days and you only hear one side of the story in school because they don't want you to hear the whole story. They don't want you to hear what I just told you I really believe they don't. Because if you heard the whole story you might think the theory is not very solid. So what it says evolution by natural selection had occurred in just one year sounds very convincing doesn't it in till you hear the rest of the story. Then you know oh no no no they just went back to normal right after that it just went back to normal. No big deal right. This is no great proof that you could become something different than you are is far as a different creature you might have a bigger beak and you might lose some genetic information but that does not prove that you're becoming a higher species by the way and this is not necessarily a lie. This is a partial truth meaning when scientists look at things like they called this a New Mexico's unfinished symphony another subject. They said this was started twenty five hundred million years ago and what they look at is you look in a cave and you have still lack tights and you have still lag mites in the you know the still active. So the ones on you know coming down from the ceiling and the still lag mites have the appearance of growing up from the ground. They don't grow up from the ground they yeah obviously the you know it is dropping is the minerals come down from the water from the still lack tides it hits the ground and slowly in a sense it does grow yes. Now what's interesting about this is you know it says tiny drops over millions of years created Carlsbad Caverns and it would seem so meaning if you were to measure the rate at which the still lack tides were growing today it is very very slow because by the way if you're in this area you find in New Mexico that there is very little rain right. Do we know that New Mexico has always been very very dry since the beginning of planet Earth. No we don't know that there were there may have been times where it was number one you know everywhere you go virtually you'll hear scientists say this area used to be under the ocean under the sea. So if it used to be much wetter. Could these grow faster in the past. Yes or no. They most certainly could. So just looking at how something is growing today does not guarantee or necessitate that that is the way it was in the past so I mean you may have seen this before the list the Lincoln Memorial Used to lactate it's growing under this and it was built in one thousand nine hundred two in this is in the one nine hundred sixty S. look at how long some of the it's this is I mean you're talking what you know not even you know right around forty years and you can have still lack tights that are maybe three four five feet long. Right. Depending on how much what precipitation how much water how much humidity is in that area. Here too. This is a it's from National Geographic magazine and what you see is you see this is a lag my you know from the ground and this on this this is a dead bat a dead bat fill and he was covered with flow stone before he could fully deteriorated. Now obviously that wouldn't have taken. You know millions of years for that to happen the this little creature would have decomposed it must have been a very rapid rate of growth for this style lag might. You may have seen this. This is in you know this is Liberty magazine by the way who puts out Liberty magazine. As Evan a search and so this is taken from Liberty magazine of May June of one thousand nine hundred ninety three and this is a one hundred year old flow stone formation and for marvelous Wyoming the story goes that a man that there was a spring coming out of the ground and a man stuck a pipe in it. So the water began to rush out the top of the pipe and as it did so within a hundred years you had this massive rock formation. So does it take millions of years for rock formations to take place. I mean this is one hundred years. So can it take million or could it I should say theoretically could it take million years or millions of years or billions sure good if it were very dry and things were very slow moving but you see in certain events with the right situation and by the way. Imagine something as catastrophic as a world wide flood how much this would change the picture of the history of planet Earth and I believe this plenty of evidence for the flood. We go on here. This is a fossilized very petrified rather a petrified tree your portion of a petrified tree. But what do you see in the portion of the petrified tree. You see someone had taken an axe to it. And they had taken the axe obviously when the tree was not like stone meaning they had hit it when it was soft and yet obviously this is not millions of years old. So it doesn't necessarily take massive quantities of time actually petrification or fossilization can happen very very rapidly and don't take my word for it. I'm going to share with you something that is almost traumatic to think about just now this is an article here. From the India Tribune. It says dead baby removed from abdomen after twenty seven years. So a woman had become pregnant and something that happened she wasn't able to deliver whatever happened the baby died and what ended up happening was this Indonesian surgeons have delivered a twenty seven year old baby now obviously wasn't alive from a middle aged housewife who had carried the dead body inside her because she was put to poor to have it removed doctors said today or you say what does this have to do with what we're talking about a team of fifteen doctors doctors operated for three hours yesterday to retrieve the one point six kilogram what baby. Petrified baby. From the fifty four year old woman identified as to Mina at the General Hospital and jump in the city Java island city of Surabaya So what we see here. That this woman had a petrified baby inside of her for twenty seven years. Now obviously it must have petrified very rapidly and you say why because what would have happened to a dead body in a woman's womb. It would have decomposed and how long do you think it would have taken ten years for it to decompose it would have decomposed very I mean she would have had rotting within her. And yet she didn't have rotting within her instead the body somehow put minerals in the place of the soft tissue that was the baby and it became a like a stone like a rock. Inside of her womb. So you see that in a very very wet conditions with mineral circulating around. What was a living tissue. You can have very very rapid potentially there petrification fossilization very interesting. So in a wet environment you would expect to have him by the way. There are no there's different kinds of fossilization there's different ways that it takes place but one of the key ways that. Many times over the majority of the time I would believe it is that you specifically have to have water because the soft tissue if water is there with minerals in the water that the minerals can potentially replace or at least stick to the tissue and in turning this this you know former living matter into what seems like stone ultimately so it doesn't necessarily take millions of years or very long time periods for these things happen. Actually it can be very very rapid So one of the things that you will learn in textbooks. That I have to tell you is complete and utter complete utter fabrication and I don't see that to be mean I say that to be honest and you're going to see the greatest skeptic on the planet agrees that we do not know how life came about from non-life we're going to share that with you in just a moment. So looking at creating life. Many of you may have heard of the miller Yuri experiment now if you were raised in a Christian home and you went to a Christian school and you never went through biology textbooks or you may not have seen these kind of things but if you went to any if you read any kind of normal just secular textbooks. You see that you see the miller your experiment how many of you have ever heard of the miller Yuri experiment. OK A number of you know the miller your experiment kind of work like this there was actually I think I just have it written now so Miller relied on the atmosphere of fear theory of his advisor Harold Harold this is the way it worked. What they did is they set up a contraption in their laboratory see their belief system amongst evolutionists is that life had to come about from non-life and it must have come about from kind of a soupy earth the atmos now atmosphere body the original conditions of the Earth must have just been water sloshing over rocks and you'd have you know lightning taking place and and the idea is that this water rushing. Over rocks maybe with the lightning hitting and with chemical strike you know chemicals in the water that maybe it would create what you know acids create proteins and these things would have had to just coalesce they would have had to come together and maybe the lightning could shock life into them and that that single celled organism was we could say birth from nature but now now that sounds maybe somewhat simple but that first single celled organism had to have the D.N.A. within it to then duplicate itself. Does it make sense. It was immediately made with the information necessary to replicate life and in Darwin's day that would seem very simple wouldn't because life was very simple in Darwin's day. In Darwin's day because is life very simple today. Now we know that the symbol of symbol rather a theme will fool of culture and liquid can have billions of bacteria billions of these things are so small and then we think well if they're that small they're obviously very simple. I mean that would be a logical conclusion but it would be wrong and these things are so I mean a single celled organism is like as complex as a city. But it's just so tiny. It's what you would imagine to be so complex. So what ended up happening is they set up a contraption they tried to make the ancient atmosphere within this contraption they would shock it to try to have shocks taking place and so as it shocking in the liquid you know having you know a certain components in it they would see if it would create amino acids or it would creep proteins one ended up happening. So they thought they believed at that time that the ancient atmosphere would have been water methane ammonia and hydrogen. This is what they guessed once again remember these. Hypotheses and it turns out they. I mean now they believe it's totally different but let's go for. Chemical Analysis identify identified several organic compounds so they're shocking. They're shocking in this you know beaker here whatever you call it. There are shocking away here. And so then they end up having this kind of down in the in one of the contraptions and you can see what ends up happening is they look at it and chemical analysis identified several organic compounds including glycogen and Ellen in the the two simplest amino acids found in proteins. So no proteins were made by the way but someone may know acids were formed now amino acids living beings are living creatures in some capacity. Not at all. They're the building blocks of life. Yes but they're not living creatures. So they became very excited and they said we have now we can see that nature can create the building blocks of life and in your textbooks will just tell you they figured out how life began symbolism. We're going to afford find out what actually happens then. Now scientists secular scientists ask the question did Miller actually use the right atmosphere in it says in Science magazine said in one thousand nine hundred five the experts now dismiss Miller's experiment. So Miller's experiment they say today is rubbish. Well that's good. They took it out of the textbooks then right. They take it out of the textbooks. You know we've known since one thousand nine hundred five that it was rubbish. Yet it stays in the textbooks. Do you see something's not right here. Now I understand it's going to take some years to get something out of the textbooks but one thousand nine hundred were more than twenty years later and guess what do you think it's still in textbooks today. You can quite imagine it is and I'll bet it will never leave in less then come up with something better but it stays there to this day and they say they say the reason it was rubbish is because the early atmosphere looked nothing like the miller Yury simulation. Meaning they're saying look. We don't believe that's what the early atmosphere looked like so why couldn't you can't use that as evidence for how life could have come about from non-life So Jonathan Wells who's a Ph D. He's the one who wrote the book that I told you about Icons of Evolution is a great book and he asked the question. And Jonathan Wells asked me What if someone used a more realistic ancient atmosphere that scientists now believe at least once again there are still some icing multi-engine atmosphere would have been which would have been they think well maybe water vapor carbon dioxide and nitrogen. So what if they use what they now imagine the engine atmosphere would have been like in what is Jonathan Well say he says you do not get any amino acids that's for sure. So you don't get any amino acids from a more realistic. So we have no idea how life could have come about. No idea. None whatsoever. He says some of the textbooks fudged by saying well even if you use a realistic atmosphere. You still get organic molecules if as if that solves the problem and that sounds good. Like organic molecules you're almost thinking of something alive with the word organic aren't you know like I have sounds good. You know organic Malo molecules and he goes on to say do you know what you get when you use a and a more realistic atmosphere. He says you get him boming fluid. Now is embalming fluid generally beneficial to living creatures. It keeps that dead creature from it from to tear him from breaking down. So ultimately the whole Miller Yuri experiment see in the sad thing is poor kids read about this in school and you know what they believe it. Why because the one who states his case first seems right until somebody tells you the other side of the story. Do you see how serious these things are very serious but the whole biology continued to tell us the same thing. Miller simulated the earlier conditions as hypothesized bio parent and Yuri and other scientists. I think the. Even knew by this point that his. They said he used their their it's true that he used their idea that scientists now say is rubbish but they still put it in the textbook and don't tell you that we don't believe it right. And they say his experiments produce the chemicals of life. Do you see how that sounds like we know we know how life came about from non-life totally sounds like that's that's what they want you to believe. Do you see that this is indoctrination. It is it is one hundred percent indoctrination. But I'm going to share with you. How many of you seen the documentary called expels anybody seen expelled. OK Just a few fascinating documentaries by age you wish man by the name of Ben Stein who was a presidential speechwriter. He was on a show that I used to watch back when I was a kid you know I was raised in administering on The Wonder Years he was the teacher of the boring teacher on the show and basically Ben Stein he's this he's a very intelligent man and he goes around in the interviews the top evolution some of the top of olution is in the world one of which is who documents. Richard Dawkins the most famous skeptic on planet earth today and he asks him questions about the origin of the university origin of life. I want you to notice. I just wrote out what he said. So Ben Stein. He's the Jewish guy. He. He asked Richard Dawkins Dawkins is a skeptic when science says Well then who made the heavens and the earth. Doc and says Why do you use the word who he is an atheist he doesn't believe God made it. Why use the word who he said well when Well how then how did it get created. Dokken says well by a very slow process. And he says Well then how did it start. Duncan says nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event. It must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life. Well what is that. He asked the question What is that Richard Dawkins says it is the origin of the self first self replicating molecules. So he's saying the origin of life must have been the creation of a self replicating Why did that happen right. Nobody else in the good thing is he's honest I appreciate Richard Dawkins honesty. He asked him how did that happen. He says I told you we don't know. Ben Stein says. So you have no idea how it started. Richard Dawkins says nor has anybody is the greatest skeptic who has the best information on evolution on the planet. I don't think probably almost anybody at least he's the most vociferous about it. I don't think anybody out there has any better information than this man and when asked. So how did life come about from non-life he says we have no idea. Nobody has any idea. But he goes on even further. That's not the end of it. So Ben Stein The Jew says nor has anybody. What do you think is the possibility that intelligent design might turn out to be the answer for some issues in genetics or in the OR in Darwinian evolution. Notice what Dawkins says this is key. He said well it could come a bow in the following way. It could be that some. At some earlier time in the universe. If civilization evolved probably by some Darwinian means to a very very high level of technology and designed so notice somewhere in the universe these beings evolved. And they had a high level of technology and they designed a form of life that they seeded perhaps on to this planet meaning. So there was these very intelligent creatures in another part of the universe and they were so intelligent that they made these forms of life that they seeded like bacteria or single celled organisms and they sent them they seeded them on planet earth like you might see the garden. And so that is what brought about life. Now this is the most the most popular evolutionist on the planet. He's. Bob the guy's made millions of dollars fighting religion. That's that's what he does but in the end he says we don't know how it happened but he said could be intelligent design. That's what he says he says now that is a possibility and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it is possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry and molecular biology. You might find a signature of some sort of what designer. Now I think I don't mean that he's trying to be dishonest I actually appreciate his honesty number one we have no idea how it happened. The textbooks act like they do and they don't they're lying to children they're books of lies they begin with lies and then they go on the thing is once they get away from evolution much of the science in the books is wonderful but in the beginning they start with a lie right. That's how the book starts. And so you think because all of the rest of it is scientific The first part must have been scientific to make sense. I mean you expect because they're all together. It's science but here's the thing. This man Richard Dawkins says we don't know how it happened but he said it might have been that super intelligent beings that came about from Darwinian evolution somewhere else in the universe. They were so intelligent that they created some kind of seeds of life. And they seeded it to other planets and you could find signature of a designer on planet earth do you see what he might be saying. He might be saying if we find evidence of design in creation. That's proof of evolution. Do you see a problem with that. Yes or no. It's kind of like you can't argue against evolution no matter what meaning no matter what you find even if you have proof that it was designed by a higher intelligence that is proof of evolution. It just doesn't make any sense. It doesn't make any sense. And yet this is the most and I'm not putting the brother down. But I think this. Just covers all bases. He's covering all bases. He's like there's a fear amongst evolution is that what if what if you did find evidence of a designer and I think we have I think we totally have and I'll share some of that tomorrow. But let's go forward. So it says this man is telling us this and he said yeah there may be a signature of a designer in nature. I find this very fascinating. So I'm going to give you another evidence for evolution that we know is not true peppered moths anybody ever heard of the peppered moths and how they prove evolution I got a few of you. So this gives you an idea in in England. You have what are called peppered Moss now they're the same kind of creature but they have different colors like humans we have different colors. We're still human. We're equally human we just have different colors and you have a lighter colored one and a darker colored peppered moth and this they say about this they say this this is the Internet international wildlife encyclopedia this is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man. You say well what do you mean what happened. Chad I'm going to I'm going to share with you. So I think as a mom of says one of the arguments of the creationists is that no one has ever seen the forces of evolution at work and he said this would seem to be the most nearly irrefutable of their arguments. And yet it too is wrong. In fact if any confirmation of Darwinism were needed. It has turned up in the examples of natural selection that have taken place and I'm sorry. It says it like that before our eyes. Now that we know what to watch for a notable example occurred in Darwin's need of land. In England. It seems the peppered moth exists in two varieties a light and a dark. Now what ended up happening. Let's look at this. So the hypothesis explaining the replacement of light laws by dark moss can be formed using Darwin's theory of evolution by. Natural selection dark peppered moths are common in the industrial areas where the tree trunks are darkened by this sort of pollution. So pollution came in the tree trunk are darker and so which one would be harder to see if the tree trunk was dark which Moth the light or the dark would be harder to see if the tree trunk is dark. Yeah they would be harder to see so the ones that would be easier to see would be the light ones and that means the birds would be more likely to eat the light one does that make sense. And so once again they see this is evidence of natural selection and I have no problem with it being naturally the ones that they can see better would be selected. But once again. Does this mean that the Dark Ones are becoming a different creature. Now it just means over time they may lose the genetic potential to make light once you lost the information but somehow we forget to forget to Think it through and think oh a change took place but the changes in negative over time. Meaning that they have less genetic information. It's positive because they're not dying off as much but it's no genetic gain it's not like a net gain for them there can be a benefit to it but here's what's interesting. What is a set it says. Dark moss are camouflaged on the dark and bark and so are are not eaten by birds light moss on the other hand would stand out against a dark background and would be easy prey for hungry birds. Now once again if we left it at this. It sounds like while a real change is taking place we see the one who states this case first seems right until the other comes and examines it. Let's examine this and look at the newest information that scientists have given us on peppered Mas well finished zoologist Karima cola. Experimented in one thousand nine hundred to discover the moths resting places. It seems certain that peppered Mas Rast where they are hidden. They concluded that exposed areas of tree trunks are not an important resting site for. Peppered moths. So the study went like this. The original study with Kettlewell the scientist Kettlewell he took pepper Mas dark and light ones during the daytime by the way. And he let them out and in the daytime some of them flew onto a tree trunk but we're going to find that peppered was number one do not fly during the day. So the study was accidentally biased right from the beginning we go on and read it says but peppered monster night flyers and normally find resting places on trees before dawn the moss Kettlewell released in the daytime remained exposed and became an easy target or they became easy targets for predatory birds so meaning he put them. He put them. You know he ended up putting them on the tree trunks or at least let them go on the tree trunks. But normally they wouldn't do that. Normally they would be hidden. So the whole idea that the tree trunks are a great proof of how they would get picked off was just wrong from the start. That's not even where they typically would rest. So the idea starts with a false premise is the industrial revolution affected the natural selection peppered Monson England as pollution Back in Black on the tree trunks black moss became more likely to survive and reproduce see the textbooks keep telling us this but now we found that you know that the scientists they tell us they actually had to glue them to the trees for the pictures because that's not where they would find them or they were pinned under the trees or they would put them on the trees because you wouldn't normally find them there but it's very convincing if you look go look at a textbook those show you them on tree trunks and you see how the bias his just promoted. That even though they normally would be hidden somewhere up in upper branches and wouldn't be on darkened tree trunks. That's not where the even exist to this day it's promoted in textbooks. We've known since eighty five. So we've known for over thirty years. Over thirty years that this is just. So we saw the first one was twenty year old information still new textbooks thirty year old information still in the textbooks but one of the ones I love the most we're just looking at three major things here this morning. You can look at more like I said read read the book by Wells read Icons of Evolution. There's various books like this. Or heckle this this man he was a German biologist from the eight hundred thirty S. to nineteen twenty died anyway in one nine hundred twenty and this man many evolutionist even Darwin himself thought this man had shown the best evidence for evolution. The number one greatest proof for evolution at least this was the idea. And what he showed was this. And that is you take creatures. And you look at them in what we call embryology. As you look at them in the process of their evolution we can say within the womb or in the egg that in the beginning they look was identical. And then as they start to grow larger they look a little different. You know but not much I mean these are these one still all of almost identical until you get over you know the Salamander and the fish but you notice they only begin to change in the latter form of their growth process. They only start to look different and and so they say look we really all began as the same thing and I've got to tell you when you look at this picture that is convincing isn't it. That's quite convincing. I mean you just got to be honest and you sit in your science class and you never heard the other side of storing your heart drops and you're like Oh my poor ignorant church. My poor parents. They've never looked into these things they just believe in by faith but we. I got to live by science. I can't live I can't lie to myself I mean look at it it's convincing what Darwin say about. The US as it seems to me the leading facts in embryology which are so. Second in importance to none in natural history meaning there is no greater proof of evolution in natural history then. The evidence that I just showed you this is the most powerful and I got to say it looks very very solid. Now here's the thing. These are his drawings these were drawings by Ernst Haeckel this man. These are the drawings he had but I'm going to show you what the pictures look like in reality if you actually take a picture of them. And don't just draw pictures like this man. Do you see a difference. This is what he said they look like in this is what they look like in reality do you see a difference between his drawing. Now I am not a good artist. But do you see something wrong here. Come on now. Like I could do a better job than that and I'm not being prideful you're going to say I'm saying. Like obviously whoever like Ernst was not that bad of a draw or he was actually pretty skilled at drawing. And yet he me that mistake. I mean we look at these things and. This is the reality. So when someone states their case. First it's super super solid. And check this out once again my bad picture I went to visit the Chicago library New Scientist found the original magazine from one thousand nine hundred seven and in that this is just opening up the magazine know what it knows what it says New Scientist may be seen September sixth one thousand nine hundred seventy embryonic what fraud lives on. So did you know I'm just notice what I'm going to literally read to you what it says here. So here's Ernst drawings on the left and notice this is what I wrote it out for you. So you can see it. This is what they tell us a New Scientist magazine a set of nineteenth century drawings that still appear in reference books are badly missed wrong says an embryologist in Britain. Although Haeckel confessed to drawing from what memory me he wasn't even looking at them. He's like oh yeah I think it all looked the same right. And so although Hagel confessed to drawing from memory and he was convicted of what fraud at the University of Genoa the drawing sperm says that's the real mystery said Richardson. C C The scientists that there are at the top of this stuff rubbish. This isn't scientific This is a lie but then they're like yeah yeah but we just keep it in the textbooks because we've got to teach the kids evolution and so they perpetuate something made known to be alive for ninety years before. This is one thousand nine hundred sixty nine. So now we're further back. This is this will blow your mind. I found the original you know science article there. And it says. Moreover the biogenetic law this idea that you can. It's just know that and notice it came to the point of being called a law. Now what is a law in science. And unchangeable truth that has been replicated so many times that it is beyond dispute. That is a law. Do you see this law of embryology. Was wrong. Could it be that the law of evolution is also wrong. What a phone. What a phone. What is to say. Moreover the biogenetic laws become so deeply rooted in biological fog that it cannot be weeded out. In spite of it having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars this in one thousand sixty nine. It goes on to say. Even today both subtle and overt uses of the biogenetic law are frequently encountered in the general biological literature as well as in more specialized evolutionary systematic studies. So they said yeah it's still kind of they are you know we don't we know it's not true but it's still purported in the scientific literature. This says this is in one thousand nine hundred eight. This is interesting. No. This is taken from an intelligent and phylogeny recapitulated and it's in the American Scientist article of May June of one thousand nine hundred eight it says Surely the biogenetic law is dead as a doornail. And notice they get this wrong. It was finally exercised from biology textbooks when. In the nineteen fifties. As a topic of serious thirty radical inquiry it was extinct in the twenty's you see we're almost one hundred years ago they knew it wasn't true only a hundred years ago they knew it wasn't true yet what we have here one thousand nine hundred four. But you can go on. I'll bet you. I'll bet you it's in your textbook if you're if you're in a biology course I'll bet you have pictures like this in your textbook today they show the same thing they make it look a little more you know these people obviously you know they've got a pig looking like a human and so so forth but very very interesting isn't it interesting that the scientists at the top. The scientists at the top they have the secret information. That is only to be kept within the Secret Group of the intelligentsia all the peons at the bottom keep getting the false information. Just keep teaching the kids keep giving them the false information we know it's not true since the one nine hundred twenty S. they said we took it out of the textbooks in the nineteen fifties it is still in textbooks that I don't know where they got the idea that I got out of the textbooks in the fifties. I have no idea where that came from. Maybe it got out for a few years but then they people started losing faith or something so they put it back in. I don't know. I doubt it. I just made that up but you understand I'm saying you know and so why is it that these things continue to persist Here's another one. Here we have been you know two thousand and one hope biology very same thing. Early in its development vertebrate embryos have similar characteristics as development continues various structures are modified until they take on the characteristic adult forms very convincing very convincing. It just. It happens not to be true. So that makes sense. You know and I and it just makes me think how many people have lost their faith because of this. How many people have lost their faith. What it is in once again they've taken their faith do you realize that this is faith because it's believing in something that you have not seen you understand it's believing in something you have not seen Stephen Jay Gould said he said one of the most famous skeptics in the world he said that the fallacy of heckles drawing was the academic equivalent of murder. That's heavy statement isn't it. And this coming from an evolutionist not from a creationist he's saying this is the academic equivalent of murder. So we're going to look our next to our next message is the Darwin murder of God But I want you to think about this according to what we've just seen. Do you do you think there's enough evidence in what we've just seen to see that Darwin murdered to God yes or no. To meaning did Darwin show god is dead. No. I actually believe we're seeing more and more that these proofs are dead more and more. And so friends we've been given these things we see that there are answers. If you're willing to look it in the danger is that we just trust teachers and the reality is we can't even do that with an admin to such occasion we need to study for ourselves. We need to get to know the truth. And we can find it. It's out there. The top scientists know the truth that these things are lives but the trouble is you won't find out until you've lost your faith. Because it's not until you get in the top realms of science that they tell you. Yeah yeah all the stuff we told you down there when you were young and and dumb. Yeah that was all wrong. It isn't that strange. What I thought. Could it be that God was right all. Not only could it be. It is true God said that he created the heavens and the earth. You know God wants to solidify our faith he wants this to share it with the people of the world. We have truth and we also know the air. Can we prove every aspect of evolution. I mean of creation. No I mean I don't I wouldn't expect to nor can the evolutionist prove how life came about from non-life can prove that God spoke the universe into existence. Now isn't there. Right. But we do have evidence that several of the things the Bible talks about historically and in even creatively in even Dawkins says maybe we're going to find evidence of design in nature. He recognizes that because maybe he's already beginning to see I don't know I don't know I can't put that in his mind but it could be true. That maybe as he reads things. It begins to peak in his mind he begins to think. And seems like it must have been designed. Because it was designed and I want to share with you very quickly. You know we like I said we make documentaries very powerful things to share with friends like the forgotten dream is to establish the validity of the Bible the most incredible prophecy is establishing the validity of Jesus' theocracy is the issue of if God is good. Why is it so much pain and suffering in the world. This is many people tells us their favorite D.V.D. or multiple people have said that the arc in the covenants the any Christ revealed the history of the any Christ the any Christ Amendment how history shows that the how the Sabbath was changed the newest of these documentaries is death near death and life after death and I showed you video clips from our newest health documentary. We have a series on Bible memorization and how the brain can be transformed called transform brain transform life in we also have a seminar overcoming habits and addictions someone struggles with any kind of negative habit doesn't need to be drugs or all call we have a seminar six parts. And on that and we also have our newest series called The brain connection and victory over depression anxiety obesity over eating anger lust and lifestyle diseases to me is my favorite lecture series that we have that's the gut brain connection but the other D.V.D.'s the documentaries are meant made to share with friends share with friends that may not believe in the Bible something that a stablish is your faith but helps you to be able to share your faith with somebody else so you can check them out our booth is number three two one three twenty one point films but before we close let's fire heads for a word of prayer. Heavenly Father we thank you so much. And maybe even some young people who they've been in their classes in their biology course and. And we hear these things in their soul logical their soul reasonable I mean you see the pictures and I mean just the proof is in the picture. If the picture came from fraud and from the new me and been people who've struggled before that I pray that they would not give up. For the lives of men but rather that they would recognize that is it says in Titus one verse two in hope will be eternal life in which God who can not lie. But there's a God who cannot lie. Yes men can lie we looked at the we looked at two new studies that showed that up to sixty five percent of of studies replicated failed to produce the similar results and then we saw a newer study seventy five percent of studies do not do not produce the same results. Meaning that potentially the majority of studies are not in actuality true. And Father would we give up our faith for a twenty five percent chance of truth in the study six. Or would we say If God has shown us to prophesy the Jesus was who he claimed to be. If we can look to prop. See that things even up to the changing of the law of God Years after over five hundred years after Daniel. If we see that God told the exact time period of the power that we persecute God's people and that brings us all the way to seven hundred ninety eight. As we see the prophecy coming up to eight hundred forty four and as we see still prophecies fulfilling we have all the evidence of prophecy to history to archaeology father Cleaves my prayers we would not let go. We would not let go for some error of human being. All the evidence you've given us in your word pray that we would yield our lives to you over the name of Jesus. Amen. This message was presented at the G Y C twenty sixteen conference when all has been heard in Houston Texas see a supporting ministry at the Seventh Day Adventist Church seeks to inspire young people to be bible based Christ centered and so winning Christians for other resources like this visit us online at W W W G Y C. We have to wear jeans.


Embed Code

Short URL