REPOST: Creation Training: Arguments Against Evolution Part 1-9

PART 1:

Creation Training: Arguments Against Evolution - By Nathan Jones - http://www.lamblion.us/2013/06/creation-training-arguments-against.html
What are the strongest arguments against Evolution?
We asked this question on our television show Christ in Prophecy of Mike Riddle, the founder and director of a wonderful ministry called the Creation Training Initiative. It's a biblical discipleship ministry that teaches Christians how to defend their faith using Genesis and the teaching of a literal 6-day Creation.
The Argument for Origins
Dr. Reagan: I love that question because it just opens up every area of Science.
Mike Riddle: To start off with, a lot of people say that the battle is between God's Word the Bible and Science. No, it is not. Because, who created all the scientific principles? God did. He is not in a battle with Himself. So, true Science will always support God's Word and refute Evolutionism.
Let's get to some of the favorite arguments I use. The first one is called the "Origin of the Universe." Where did the matter come from to create the universe? We all know from good science and logic that from nothing, nothing comes. That question right there is a killer to the evolutionary model, because if you can't even get the first piece of matter then you've got nothing.
The Argument for Complexity
Mike Riddle: Here is one of my other favorite argument I call the "Origin of Life." I love this one. Why? Let's just take the cell. Let's start with one cell, for we've got about 60 trillion of these in our bodies. The cell is more complex than any machine mankind has ever made.
Sixty trillion. Did you know that is greater than the national debt right now?
Nathan Jones: Not for long!
Mike Riddle: Well, yes. We have 60 trillion cells and each cell is more complex than any machine mankind has ever made. But, we don't have to talk about a cell. Let's go further back in complexity and just talk about one single protein, not DNA, but just a single protein. Our best scientists in the world cannot produce one single protein. They come up with all these explanations for why they cannot.
The Argument for Oxygen
Mike Riddle: Here's the point - life cannot start in the presence of oxygen in the atmosphere because oxygen destroys chemical bonds. So, if there was oxygen in the atmosphere, life could never have begun. So, what Evolutionists teach in our schools is this: the atmosphere was different back then and there was no oxygen. That is a ridiculous thought, too, because if we take away all the oxygen we have no ozone, because ozone is made out of oxygen. If we don't have any ozone then those ultraviolet rays come down and fry all life, therefore everything is dead.
Now what Evolutionists are saying is that life started way down deep in the oceans so the sun light could not reach the proteins. I first think, "Wow, what a wonderful idea!" But, there is a process of water called hydrolysis, with hydro meaning "water." Hydrolysis literally means "water splitting." Water is necessary for us to survive, but it is one of the worst places in the universe for life to begin. Life cannot start with or without oxygen, and it cannot start in water. That is a huge problem for the Evolutionary model.
The Argument for Protein Creation
Mike Riddle: Let's then look at the structure of a protein. We have hands, both left and right. Our left and right hands are made up of the same things - four fingers and a thumb. But, the hands are not quite the same, because you put one hand behind the other and you'll notice your thumb and fingers are on opposite sides. Amino acids, which are these things that make up our proteins, they also come in two shapes called left and right-handed. They are mirror images of each other, just like our hands.
Here's the situation. Every amino acid in all biological proteins and in all life is left-handed. The natural tendency when we let bonding go along by itself always bonds left and right. Our best scientists in the world in every experiment they've ever done always ends up with left and right-handed amino acids. The result is like death, for such a configuration poisons life. Life requires 100% left-handed amino acids.
There's a lot to point out right there from a scripture - Romans 1:19-20, "God has given us all the evidence we need for believing in a Creator and no one has an excuse." I believe protein bonding is one of the great examples right there. Life cannot start by naturalistic processes. I think that is a powerful, powerful tool for people to use in countering the Evolutionist's false claims.
The Argument for Design
Dr. Reagan: I'm surprised you didn't mention the argument that most people use, and that is the argument of design.
Mike Riddle: Design, well cell complexity and protein bonding both come under design. We could go on for days and days on just design.
Dr. Reagan: All my life I wanted to see Mt. Rushmore. All of my life! Finally on our 50th wedding anniversary, my wife and I went to South Dakota and I finally saw Mt. Rushmore. I just stood there and thought, "Isn't it amazing what can be accomplished accidentally by erosion?" No, in truth, it hits you - when you have something that is designed, you have to have a designer.
Mike Riddle: Right, when you look at every creature, every animal, you see incredible design in there that defies Evolutionism.
Dr. Reagan: If I were to say that Mt. Rushmore was created accidently by erosion, a scientist would say I was insane. And yet, he turns around and says the whole universe accidently happened!
Mike Riddle: Right. Take a look at our computers, well we know they didn't happen by accident, and they are nothing compared to the human body.
Dr. Reagan: There has to be a designer.
Nathan Jones: Romans 1:20 says that, "For His invisible attributes, that is His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being understood through what has been made, as a result people are without excuse." We have no excuse for denying a Creator.
Mike Riddle: Yes, exactly.
Dr. Reagan: At the time that Darwin wrote his book, he wrote about the complexity of the human eye. That was before they even had good studies in microbiology and all of the discoveries that we have now. He was just sure that Science would ultimately prove Evolution. And yet, it seems the more Science we discover, the more evidence we have against Evolution.
Mike Riddle: Right. Actually, the best evidence against Evolution is God's Word itself, because it has never changed. There is a lot of Science in the Bible, and it has never had to change. But, our Science textbooks, we have to keep updating them, don't we?
Dr. Reagan: When you talk about a lot of Science in the Bible, that is so true. For example, the Bible talks about how the earth is round (Job 26:10; Proverbs 8:27; Isaiah 40:21-22). And yet, Evolutionists call us "flat-earth people" if we believe in the Creation.
The Argument for Morality
Mike Riddle: Here's another argument - morality. What's the difference between good and evil? How do you determine if something is good or something is evil? When asking the Evolutionists that, they really don't have an answer. They cannot give a universal definition of what is evil and what it good. They'll talk about how maybe it's one's own opinion. Well, everybody has different opinions. Or, they'll say morality is whatever society believes. Well, different societies have different values.
Only the Bible gives a universal definition. God commands us to be perfect. But, do you know what, we're not perfect, are we? God gave us a solution on how to be perfect, and that's His Son, Jesus Christ. So, God gives us the definition for He is the One who declares what is good and what is evil. He also declares that we have to be perfect, and He provides the solution for becoming perfect - accepting Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Savior of our souls.
In the seventh segment of this Creation training series with Mike Riddle, he'll explain why DNA destroys the Evolutionary model.

PART 2

Creation Training: Carbon Destroys the Evolutionary Model - By Nathan Jones - http://www.lamblion.us/2013/06/creation-training-carbon-destroys.html
Does Carbon 14 dating destroy the evolutionary model?
We asked this question on our television show Christ in Prophecy of Mike Riddle, the founder and director of a wonderful ministry called the Creation Training Initiative. It's a biblical discipleship ministry that teaches Christians how to defend their faith using Genesis and the teaching of a literal 6-day Creation.
Carbon 14 Dating
Nathan Jones: There are all these dating techniques like Carbon 14 that we hear about from Evolutionists who say these methods prove that the earth is millions of years old. I hear many pastors and preachers even claim that Carbon 14 dating has proven that the earth is millions of years old. How do you respond to these claims?
Mike Riddle: Well, the first problem is that we have a lot of people talking about the age of the earth who have never really been to the labs to see how these dating methods really work. The first thing we need to understand is that every one of these dating methods, whether radiometric dating, or radioactivity which is what we are talking about when one element changes another, these elements change, just like when we get older we change. For instance, put a banana out there for awhile. What happens to it? It turns brown, and then it is only good for making banana bread at that point. Things change and elements do too. One element will change to another over time. Those changes are used as a measurement.
The key part we must remember firstly is that every one of these dating methods is based on assumptions. Assumptions are not mentioned in the textbooks. Every one of these assumptions have been proven to be faulty and in error. So, if your premise or your assumption is false, your conclusion will also be in error. That fact's not being taught.
I'll give you some examples. Lava flows in New Zealand were shown dated at 275,000 years old, when in actuality those lava flows were made in 1949. Pretty big error there!
Mount Saint Helens is a very good example of these dating errors. In May 1980, rocks were formed from the lava flows that erupted out of the mountain. The eruption also created overnight a canyon that looks like Grand Canyon, proving the Grand Canyon didn't need to take millions of years to form. Anyway, these rocks created in 1980 were actually dated at over two million years old. So, even when we know when a rock was formed, we still never get the correct age. Why then should we trust the dating of the earth when we don't even know when the rock was formed?
Geology labs can take one rock sample, date it by say four different methods (though there a lot of different methods that we can use), and come up with four very different ages ranging from hundreds of millions of years of differences in age. These tests then clearly are not reliable.
Nathan, you mentioned Carbon 14 dating. The simple thing about Carbon 14 is that after about 80,000 years all the datable Carbon 14 has decayed out of something. If we find something with Carbon 14 in it, it means it has to be any datable Carbon 14, meaning it has to be younger than 80,000 years.
Let's look at coal, for instance. The Institute for Creation Research did some studies on coal. They took coal samples which according to Evolutionists coal is millions of years old and should have no Carbon 14 in it. ICR took their coal to an Evolutionist's lab to make sure there'd be no bias. Guess what they found in every coal sample? Carbon 14. That coal in truth is not millions of years old will never get published.
The ICR then did a study of diamonds. Diamonds are a very special kind of stone because they are made up of pure carbon. Diamonds according to Evolutionists are supposed to be hundreds of millions to billions of years old, so there should absolutely be no Carbon 14 in those things. But, they took these diamonds samples to the lab, and guess what they found? In every diamond sample? Yes, Carbon 14.
Carbon 14 is a powerful testimony this earth has to be young.
Dr. Reagan: I was also under the impression that in Carbon 14 dating one of the assumptions is there was never a worldwide flood.
Mike Riddle: Right, there is that assumption behind Carbon 14 dating that creates false readings. The inventor of Carbon 14, Dr. Willard Libby, even noticed his assumption was false, but he ignored it because of his belief in Evolution.
Dr. Reagan: I've also been intrigued by findings recently of dinosaur skeletons that actually contain soft matter in the bones. And yet, dinosaurs are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old, right?
Mike Riddle: Right. Paleontologists have been finding dinosaur skeletons with proteins, red blood cells, and tissue that is even stretchable, and they are finding Carbon 14 in their bones as well.
Dr. Reagan: How can that be if these skeletons are hundreds of millions of years old?
Mike Riddle: Simple, they can't be that old. But, here is the best explanation that we are hearing now from Evolutionists to explain the organic tissue found away - there is some unknown process that preserves soft tissue for millions and millions of years. Well, that's what you call a" rescue mechanism." It's not based on any observable science.
In the eleventh and last segment of this Creation training series with Mike Riddle, he'll explain why Evolution is every bit a religion.

PART 3

Creation Training: DNA Demolishes Evolution - By Nathan Jones - http://www.lamblion.us/2013/06/creation-training-dna-demolishes.html
Does the existence of DNA destroy the evolutionary model?
We asked this question on our television show Christ in Prophecy of Mike Riddle, the founder and director of a wonderful ministry called the Creation Training Initiative. It's a biblical discipleship ministry that teaches Christians how to defend their faith using Genesis and the teaching of a literal 6-day Creation.
Computer Code for the Body
Dr. Reagan: Mike, DNA is so complex as I understand it. Even Bill Gates has said DNA is more complex than anything he's ever been able to program. How can a person continue to believe in Evolution with the evident complexity of DNA?
Mike Riddle: First of all, the discovery of DNA from just what we know about DNA has demolished Evolution. The problem is that this fact is not being told in the educational systems. Students are being told a whole different story about DNA and how it supports Evolution. But, it doesn't.
You know the mechanism for Evolution in that how it works depends on getting random mutations. Then through a series of random mutations there is a selection process that selects only the beneficial ones. There are some problems with that theory that we are not being told. First of all, mutations do not add new genetic information. They tend to take positive traits away or maybe keep them neutral at best. But, mutations have never been known to create new information, and therefore new and superior life.
In talking about information, let's take a look at just one DNA molecule. When we compare that to our modern computer hard drives, the compactness of the information in just one DNA molecule is over 5 billion (that is with a "B") times more compact than any hard drive that we have today. That's incredible!
DNA Helix
And, where did that vast amount of information come from? Well, let me give you one of my best examples that I think really support design and a Creator God. Let's look at the monarch butterfly. I love that creature. Monarch butterflies starts off as a tiny, tiny little worm (the technical term is larvae), and in about 20 days it grows to maturity, reaching almost two inches long. Once it reaches maturity, it finds a special leaf and builds a silk pad on the bottom of that leaf. Then it connects itself and hangs in a "J" position. After a while you can start to see this caterpillar move, and when it starts to move it's going to build a chrysalis. It builds it from the head back. And that's not yet what is amazing. What happens next is amazing!
Butterfly Stages
Once that caterpillar is in its chrysalis, the entire caterpillar except for the heart dissolves into a green liquid. Let me ask you a question here, this will be like a homework assignment question. Go home tonight. Turn yourself into a green liquid. What are you going to do next? That's it, you're done, unless of course somebody who is all intelligent pre-programs information into your DNA so that you can reassemble yourself. This is called "pre-programmed information." Even if Evolution worked, it can't do because if Evolution worked it can only work for the here and now, it cannot see into the future for its mutation needs. So, I think the monarch butterfly is a great case for the design and intelligence of a Creator.
Dr. Reagan: Basically you're saying that the DNA has demolished Evolution as a theory, and yet people cling to it because they close their eyes to the evidence?
Mike Riddle: Yes, they close their eyes. And, also because they are not being taught the truth about what DNA is all about.
Dr. Reagan: It reminds me of the book that came out recently by Ray Comfort with the title, You can Lead an Atheist to Evidence, But You Can't Make Him Think.
Mike Riddle: That's true, we're not being taught critical thinking skills anymore.
Nathan Jones: That reminds me of Romans 1:21, "For although they knew God, they didn't glorify him as God or show gratitude. Instead their thinking became nonsense and their senseless minds were darkened." They willfully wanted to be ignorant. That's being dumb on purpose.
Mike Riddle: Right. What I like to teach is critical thinking skills, which we do in my classes. I give everybody three questions to ask when they are confronted by the Evolutionists: How do you know it's true? Has it ever been observed? So then, are you making any assumptions?
In the eighth segment of this Creation training series with Mike Riddle, he'll explain why the fossil record destroys the Evolutionary model.

PART 4

Creation Training: Fossil Record Destroys Evolutionary Model - By Nathan Jones - http://www.lamblion.us/2013/06/creation-training-fossil-record.html
Does the fossil record destroy the evolutionary model?
We asked this question on our television show Christ in Prophecy of Mike Riddle, the founder and director of a wonderful ministry called the Creation Training Initiative. It's a biblical discipleship ministry that teaches Christians how to defend their faith using Genesis and the teaching of a literal 6-day Creation.
Those Telling Fossils
Nathan Jones: Tell us about the fossil record. Doesn't the fossil record prove Evolution?
Mike Riddle: When you look in school textbooks they'll say the fossil record sure proves Evolution.
Here's another critical thinking question that I just love and I train our youth to ask this question. When you look in the textbooks we see all these transitional fossils there. But, here's the question - how much of that fossil was actually found, and how much was added in by an artist based on assumptions? What we find in reality are very few fragments of a lot of these fossils. The rest is just drawn by an artist.
Dr. Reagan: What amazes me is they will find just one tooth - one tooth - and then an artist will draw this entire Neanderthal ape-looking person, all from one tooth.
Mike Riddle: That's right, that's been done before. It's all imagination.
Nathan Jones: When I was in seventh grade, we had a guy come to our class and put all these skulls on the table. He declared, "Look, this is the progression of humankind." So, I asked him, "Are those real, genuine skulls?" He actually answered, "Yes, yes, they are. These are real fossils." But in truth, not a single one of them could have actually been a real fossil of a pre-human skull. They were merely artist's plaster castings. And yet, this Evolutionist went up in front of our class and told us that the fossil record proved Evolution. He lied to a room full of kids. In truth, there is nothing in the fossil record that supports Evolution, for there are no transitional fossils of creatures changing from one species to another.
Mike Riddle: When we look at the fossils, what do we find? For example, what does the fossil turtle look like? Exactly like a turtle. There is a bat that is supposed to be millions and millions years old, this fossilized bat, well it looks exactly like a bat.
Dr. Reagan: What about a dog?
Mike Riddle: A dog? They look like dogs.
Dr. Reagan: Have you ever found a dat?
Mike Riddle: We haven't found any of those either. Evolutionists say alligators go back hundreds of millions of years. Guess what? They look like in their fossil record the same as today - alligators. Every creature that is living today, if we can find their fossil, looks almost exactly like it is today.
Let's then talk about fossil graveyards. These are grave yards where we find hundreds, sometimes thousands, of different kinds of creatures all buried and mangled together. In some cases dinosaurs are buried with all different kinds of creatures.
First, how are fossils formed? They have to be buried rapidly by the sediment to keep the oxygen out and the scavengers out, or you're the bones are never going to become fossils. How do you get thousands of creatures in these fossil graveyards such as fish, mammals, and reptiles all buried together? They don't all live in the same zones even. We find most of these fossil graveyards in sediments laid down by water. So, fossil graveyards are not created by long, slow processes. It takes a catastrophic event to mix all these animals together. And yet, we find these fossil graveyards all over the world. What does that tell you? It is a great indicator of a worldwide flood.
Dr. Reagan: I read one time where the writer said that the fossil record isn't really a record of historical ages, instead it is a record of an event, and that event is a worldwide flood.
Mike Riddle: Exactly, fossil graveyards just scream of a worldwide flood.
In the ninth segment of this Creation training series with Mike Riddle, he'll explain why the earliest datings of human records destroys the Evolutionary model.

PART 5

Creation Training: Language Records Destroy the Evolutionary Model - By Nathan Jones - http://www.lamblion.us/2013/06/creation-training-language-records.html
Does language destroy the evolutionary model and prove the Flood?
We asked this question on our television show Christ in Prophecy of Mike Riddle, the founder and director of a wonderful ministry called the Creation Training Initiative. It's a biblical discipleship ministry that teaches Christians how to defend their faith using Genesis and the teaching of a literal 6-day Creation.
Problems with Theistic Evolution
Dr. Reagan: We discussed earlier the Gap Theory and how people have tried to use that to adjust the Bible to Science. There is also another way they try to do that, and it's called Theistic Evolution. Many who believe in Theistic Evolution also believe in the Gap Theory. What exactly is Theistic Evolution and what are the problems with this theory?
Mike Riddle: Theistic Evolution is the idea that God used some form or forms of Evolution during His creative process. I hear this statement a lot of times, that God could have used Evolution. It's the wrong statement to make for a Christian. It's not a matter of what God could have done, rather it is a matter of what He did do as recorded in the Bible.
There are some problems common to all the Theistic Evolutionary models concerning the days of creation being long periods of time, which the Bible does not teach, nor does Science support. For example, one such falsehood is called the Framework Hypothesis, where Genesis is taken as just being poetic and is not meant to be taken as real history.
There are other forms out there, but they all have one basic thing in common, and that is the idea of billions of years. If we add billions of years into the Bible, that is clearly teaching death before sin. What happens in those billions of years is death, decay and disease, and that would all have to have happened before sin. If death was already there before sin, then why did Jesus Christ have to go to the cross and shed His blood and die and conquer physical death? We lose our foundation of the Gospel.
Here's another argument from Genesis 1:31. God looks back on His entire creation and calls it, "very good." If we've already had billions of years of death, decay and disease like cancer which we find in the bones, then God is calling cancer very good? That oddly enough is what Theistic Evolutionists adopt.
Human Records
Nathan Jones: The Bible obviously goes back some four to six thousand years. Then we go back to most human records, and all human records only go back a few thousand years. If we have millions of years of human history, why then don't we see a book from 100,000 years ago, or a cave painting, or something that is really old?
Mike Riddle: Well, you answered the question, for if we really had millions of years, we would have records today. But, since humanity really hasn't had millions of years, we don't see any records older than the Bible.
We can even look at just language itself, and what we call the oldest or earliest of languages, well they are very complicated. Language didn't start off as simple languages. These early people did not communicate in grunts. We only think that from watching television. When we look back at the ancient peoples, they were not dumb back then. They were very smart people. Just look at Adam and Eve the things they did.
One of my studies I teach is on ancient Egyptian mathematics. The people that were building the pyramids were using Calculus. They were very smart people back then. Sure, they didn't have the modern technology that we have with our computers, but what they achieved shows that people have always been very smart and very intelligent. When life spans were much longer and people lived a long time, they accumulated a vast amount of knowledge.
So, yes, the records only go back to about the time right after the Flood. What was the purpose of the Flood? It destroy all of mankind. God did that. So, our written records will only back to about the time of the Flood, which is about 4,500 to 4,600 years ago.
In the tenth segment of this Creation training series with Mike Riddle, he'll explain why Carbon 14 dating destroys the Evolutionary model.

PART 6

Creation Training: The Age of the Earth - By Nathan Jones - http://www.lamblion.us/2013/06/creation-training-age-of-earth.html Is the age of the Earth old or young? We asked this question on our television show Christ in Prophecy of Mike Riddle, the founder and director of a wonderful ministry called the Creation Training Initiative. It's a biblical discipleship ministry that teaches Christians how to defend their faith using Genesis and the teaching of a literal 6-day Creation. Age of the Earth Nathan Jones: Mike, one question we get a lot, and I even read it posted recently on our YouTube channel, is that people are always bashing Christians for our belief contrary to what Science claims to have proven in that the earth is millions and millions of years old. People want to know why we don't just get off this Young Earth belief and accept Science's conclusion for how everything came about through Evolution. How do you respond to people like that? Mike Riddle: That is a very big question. People do believe, not only non-believers unfortunately as there are many Christians out there as well, that scientists have proven the earth is billions of years old. That comes from a misinterpretation or misunderstanding of the limits of science. Scientists cannot prove the age of the earth. We divide science into two main areas. One is called Observational Science or Operational Science. That's how we build our jet engines and how we make our medical technology and how we develop computers. Those are things that we can observe. We can touch and feel them. Then there is another area of science called Origins Science, or Historical Science, which covers those events that happened in the past. People obviously were not there to observe them happening. Therefore, we have to piece the clues together. In other words, dating the origins of anything long past is based on assumptions or our interpretation of the evidence. That there are different types of sciences is what people do not understand. The scientist cannot prove the age of the earth, because according to Science he would have to have been there to observe it being made. Incidentally, what many scientists are not looking at is the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence that shows the earth is very young. The real issue for believers is that they are not starting with the Bible. When I read the Bible beginning with Genesis, it starts off telling us that God created everything in six days. God uses the word "day" there. What God did to make sure we understand they were literal days is that He put a number with each day: first day, second day, third day, fourth day. I like to ask people: "How many times did God use a number with the word 'day' in the Old Testament?" It's 410 times, and not one of those occasions does 'day' mean a long period of time! God even made it easier for us because He defined His days as each having an evening and a morning. There was "evening and morning, the first day." There was "evening and morning, the second day." Everywhere in the Old Testament account we see the phrase "evening and morning." Each day then could only mean one 24-hour day. But, God didn't stop there. What a wonderful God we have! When He wrote down the Ten Commandments, in commandment number four He wrote this down, "For in six days the Lord made the heaven, the earth, the sea and all that it is in them therefore..." I like that word "therefore," for if we don't accept God's days of creation as being literal days, then commandment number four doesn't mean what it really says and it becomes open to our interpretation. If commandment number four is open to our interpretation, then how can we trust the other nine? Nathan Jones: Commandment number four being about keeping the Sabbath day. Mike Riddle: Right. By giving up our foundation in Genesis, we now have given up a literal interpretation of the Ten Commandments. This becomes a serious issue. Dr. Reagan: There was one observer of the Creation, and He has told us how He did it. It is God Himself. Mike Riddle: Exactly! Dr. Reagan: But, there are no scientists who were there to observe the earth being formed, so they really haven't proved their origins theories? Mike Riddle: No, they can't prove the age of the earth because scientifically they would have had to have been there to observe the earth being formed. What they do instead is they look for evidence that would tell the story. We all look at the same evidence, but then we interpret what we see. People interpret based on our own worldview. That becomes our starting point. As for me, I start with God's Word as my authority. In the third segment of this Creation training series with Mike Riddle, he'll explain why believing in the Genesis account of the Creation should matter to Christians.   PART 7   Creation Training: The Big Bang Theory - By Nathan Jones - http://www.lamblion.us/2013/06/creation-training-big-bang-theory.html Is the Big Bang Theory a viable theory for explaining the origins of the universe? We asked this question on our television show Christ in Prophecy of Mike Riddle, the founder and director of a wonderful ministry called the Creation Training Initiative. It's a biblical discipleship ministry that teaches Christians how to defend their faith using Genesis and the teaching of a literal 6-day Creation. The Big Bang Dr. Reagan: Scientists say the universe began with a big bang, an explosion. What are the problems with that theory? Mike Riddle: The first problem is that nowhere do we see the Big Bang in the Bible. The next thing we have to understand is what exactly is the Big Bang Theory? Why was it invented? Well, the Big Bang Theory was originally invented to explain everything in this universe without a Creator, and that's the first big problem. The second problem is that it doesn't agree with Science. This is where a lot of people are going astray. The Big Bang does not agree with Science. There are many scientific evidences that refute the Big Bang. One of the things I like to cover in one of my teaching courses is what is being taught in the schools. Rather, what they are not teaching in the schools. What we find in our public education system is that they are teaching Evolution and not real Science anymore. For example, let's talk about the Big Bang. Where did the matter come from to create the Big Bang? What exploded? You can't have something go "bang" until you have something that can go "bang". That's just common sense and logic. A second question is, "What caused that something to explode?" Those questions are not allowed to be asked in a lot of our universities classrooms, mind you. Then we have other problems. Did you know the Big Bang does not explain the origin of the stars? Stars do not form by naturalistic processes. No one has ever observed a star come from anywhere. So, where did they all come from? We get this idea from our textbooks that these great big dust clouds called nebula rotate around and around and around. As they rotate around and around we are told the gravitation collapses inward and after a period of time they form a star. Nathan Jones: A dust cloud forming a star? Mike Riddle: I give a technical term for that theory. It's called "bologna"! Did you know that we can do this experiment in the classroom where as the gas cloud rotates around it will begin gravitation and collapse inward? But, do you know what happens as it collapses inward? It generates heat pressure, and we can measure this. That heat pressure is always stronger than the gravity and always causes the cloud to expand outward, not inward. So, we have no scientific proof for how stars are formed. It's all conjecture based on Evolutionism. Then we have things called spiral galaxies. These are galaxies rotating around out there. Our Milky Way is a spiral galaxy. But, after so many rotations, they lose their spiral shape. So, if these galaxies are billions of years old, they should not be spiral shaped. Clearly there are many problems with the Big Bang Theory that don't explain the origin of the galaxies. Nathan Jones: Planets are even spinning around the wrong direction, too, right? Mike Riddle: Right. We have planets spinning the wrong way. We have what's called supernovas, which is a fancy term for stars that exploded. They've used up all their energy and then explode. In our Milky Way galaxy alone, and this is why they don't teach this, we only find enough exploded stars for an age of about 6,000 years. Isn't that amazing? Also, the fact that we have comets shows our solar system has to be very young. The Big Bang doesn't provide for the age of comets. Dr. Reagan: Not only does the Big Bang Theory have that problem and all the problems that you mentioned, but how many explosions have you ever seen that created order? Mike Riddle: None. Order is not created from chaos. Having been in the Marines, I know that for sure! Adherents to the Big Bang Theory teach that somehow the matter got there out of nowhere. How the matter got there, we are not allowed to ask. That matter then somehow started to expand and grew into a hot fireball. It exploded and created an expansion of space and time, and yet it has no center. That's the main part proponents of the Big Bang Theory cannot explain either. Light Speed Nathan Jones: Speaking of stars and them having to be young, wouldn't it take millions of years for their light from some of these stars to reach earth? After all, light takes a long time to travel, and 6,000 years is clearly not enough time. How do you explain that? Mike Riddle: When we look at those great distances between stars, on the surface level that looks like it would be a problem for Christians to explain. Here's the situation. The Bible teaches the earth is about 6,000 years old and was created in six literal days. So, if these galaxies out there are millions of light years away, how in the world could their light reach us in only about 6,000 years? We do have possible scientific explanations that could be right, and they could be wrong. We just don't know for sure. We mustn't forget that we have a God who can do anything. We tend to limit Him too much. He could get that light here. He could have used any scientific means. He could have used some miracles. But, our God we forget is all powerful and all knowing, for after all, He created everything out of nothing, so He can get the light here in the time that is needed for us to see it. Aside from that, we do have some possible scientific explanations. Nathan Jones: Yes, what are those scientific explanations? Because people don't generally take the, "well, God can just supernaturally do it" argument. Mike Riddle: True. Without getting into all the details which people can get online from the Answers in Genesis website or the Institute for Creation website, there is a scientific explanation called Time Dilation. It's about how gravity affects time. The greater the gravitational pull, the slower time will go. We can measure that using our atomic clocks, so we know that relationship happens. If we have a greater gravitational effect here on earth, then time could be going slower here than it is out there. Those stars could have aged hundreds of thousands and millions of years in just 6,000 earth years. Now, I'm careful when I talk about that, because we can get glazed eyes talking about that kind of stuff. Nathan Jones: Oh, no, I find it fascinating. Mike Riddle: There are other possible scientific explanations for why starlight appears to be millions of years old, but what I like to point out is what Evolutionists don't teach. The Evolutionist have a bigger problem than we do with the distance of starlight. First of all, they have to get their light source from stars. Well, where did those stars come from? They just make up rescue mechanisms by diverting the question away from origins. Here is another problem Evolutionists have, and that's related to the temperature of the universe. When we look out all around this universe, it seems to be what we call a homogenous or consistent temperature. There has not been enough time in the alleged 13 billion years for the light energy from this side of the universe to have traveled over and interact with the other side of the universe. In order to get a homogeneous temperature, all the light energy has to have interacted. But, there has not been enough time. Why then is the temperature all the same? Here is what the Evolutionists do, they have their answers and explanations for these things, but I'll point out every one of their explanations are not based on observable science. They use what we call a "rescue mechanism" to rescue their philosophy. In reality, the distance of starlight both believer and non-believer ultimately have to accept is by faith. What does your faith in Evolution have to offer me? I'll tell you what my faith in Jesus Christ has to offer you. In the fifth segment of this Creation training series with Mike Riddle, he'll explain why the Gap Theory makes no sense. PART 8 Creation Training: The Gap Theory - By Nathan Jones - http://www.lamblion.us/2013/06/creation-training-gap-theory.html Is the Gap Theory a biblical teaching or just bad translation? We asked this question on our television show Christ in Prophecy of Mike Riddle, the founder and director of a wonderful ministry called the Creation Training Initiative. It's a biblical discipleship ministry that teaches Christians how to defend their faith using Genesis and the teaching of a literal 6-day Creation. The Gap Theory Nathan Jones: We have Dr. David R. Reagan here, but there is a Dr. David F. Reagan out there who believes in the Gap Theory. People are always getting the Dr. Reagan's mixed up. Can you explain the Gap Theory for people so they know that we here at Lamb & Lion Ministries do not believe in the Gap Theory. Please tell us what the Gap Theory is and what are the verses it applies to. Dr. Reagan: I want to say that again - I do not believe in the Gap Theory. I've never believed in the Gap Theory. So, Mike, tell us about the Gap Theory. Mike Riddle: First of all, let me explain what the Gap Theory is and why it got invented. In the 1800's, people started believing that the earth was old and that was in part from what Charles Darwin brought about. The earth has to be old to accommodate the whole idea and philosophy of Evolutionism. A lot of our theologians started to cave in by that point and declared, "Well, if they've proven the earth to be billions of years old, where are we going to put this time into the Bible?" They decided to invent something called a gap to explain the long geologic ages in the fossil record. They put a gap in between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. These verses read, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth was without form and void." What these confused theologians did in between those two verses was to put a gap of time of millions of years to accommodate the geologic time. To do this they reworded the Bible just a little bit so that it says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth and the earth became (not was) without form and void." In other words, the rewording gave the indication that God created the earth and then something happened before the rest of creation was completed. There are a lot of different versions to what this something could be. Some say it had to be Satan's fall which then made a flood which destroyed everything. The earth then became without form and void. We have to look at the word "became" which is the verb hayah in Hebrew. Can it mean became? Yes it can, but only in very specific cases, and only when hayah is proceeded by a preposition. In this case it is not proceeded by a preposition, so using "become" is an incorrect translation to translate that verb "became" rather than "was". Another text these Gap Theorists use is in the King James, and that's the word "replenish" from Genesis 1:28. God told the people to go and "replenish" gives the indication that something went wrong and people have to refill the earth. We have to understand the King James is not wrong there. We have to understand that when the King James Bible was written the word "replenish" meant "to fill," not "refill." so we have to have a little study in grammar here. After the King James Bible was written that verb underwent a definition change. Today it means "to refill." So, to translate that correctly in modern English we should use "fill" instead of "replenish." There are other problems with the Gap Theory. For instance, if we put the long geologic ages with the fossil record between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2 the problem here is, what was going on during that gap? Death, decay, and disease. The Gap Theory clearly teaches death before sin, and the Bible teaches death after sin (Rom. 5:12). Dr. Reagan: How does someone like Hugh Ross handle this question? Mike Riddle: Hugh Ross' ministry will say that when it comes to sin the Bible's just referring to human death. Romans 5:12 does refer to just human death. But, he forgets Romans 8:22 where it says, "all of creation groans," which includes everything including the animals all because of one man's sin. So, he misses that point. Or, he'll come up and say, "There had to be death before sin. Plants were dying. What were Adam and Eve eating from? Plants. What happens when you dig up plants and eat them? We kill them." He forgets a very important point there. God gave the breath of life to humans, and He also gives life to the animals. But, nowhere in the Bible does God give the breath of life to plants. Plants biologically have life because they have a cell structure, but biblically they are not given life. So, there really is no death before sin found anywhere in the Bible, and therefore no gap between Genesis 1 and 2. Dr. Reagan: So, the theologians who can't accept a young earth have got to come up with another theory? Mike Riddle: Right, and unfortunately they in the process discredit the authority of God's Word. They are also not using good science in doing that because good science does indeed support a very young earth. Dr. Reagan: Yes, and so does the statement concerning the Sabbath in the Ten Commandments where you earlier pointed out it says a day is a day. Mike Riddle: Here's another one. Did you know Jesus Christ Himself believed in a young earth? In Mark 10:6, Jesus makes this statement, "But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." What is Jesus saying here? Man and woman were on this planet from the beginning of the Creation, and not after millions of years. There's Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior and the eyewitness Creator to all things proclaiming the earth is young. In the sixth segment of this Creation training series with Mike Riddle, he'll give us the strongest arguments against Evolution. PART 9 Creation Training: The Religion of Evolution - By Nathan Jones - http://www.lamblion.us/2013/06/creation-training-religion-of-evolution.html Is Evolution in truth a religion? We asked this question on our television show Christ in Prophecy of Mike Riddle, the founder and director of a wonderful ministry called the Creation Training Initiative. It's a biblical discipleship ministry that teaches Christians how to defend their faith using Genesis and the teaching of a literal 6-day Creation. Authority for Faith Dr. Reagan: I want to go back to a fundamental question that we started with earlier. It's so fundamental I want to end with it. What difference does it make whether it took a billion years or 6,000 years to make the Earth? Mike Riddle: This is the best question to end on. Why does it matter? It comes back again to the authority of God's Word, the Scriptures. When do we believe it? When do we not believe it? The world looks at Christians to see if we are really consistent in our beliefs. If we don't believe in our Bibles, then how can we ask other people to believe in it? Let me give you a great example here of consistency. I love to ask this question. Do we as Christians really believe Jesus Christ died on that cross? We'll say, "Yes." But, do we believe that He rose again on the third day? And, we'll say, "Yes." My question after that is, "Why do you believe that? You were not there to observe it." The answer is when it comes to God's Word, we believe it by faith. But, let me add one more thing. Did you know according to all known Science that you cannot be dead for three days and come back to life? So, are you still willing to go against known Science and believe the Resurrection. We'll say, "Yes." But, then are you willing to believe that God created everything in six literal days as His Word says, even though our best scientists refuse to do so? The world sees this, too. They see many Christians say, "I believe the Resurrection, but I don't believe in the Creation." The world sees that inconsistency there. When we adopt an old Earth, we ourselves become as the Church a stumbling block for people accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior because we don't accept that truth ourselves. Dr. Reagan: One thing that I have taught for many years is that we need to accept God's Word for what it says, from the beginning to the end. If the plain sense makes sense, don't look for any other sense, or you'll end up with nonsense. God knows how to communicate. He wants to communicate. You don't have to have a Ph.D. in hermeneutics or imagination. You do have to have the Holy Spirit residing in you to understand all of God's Word, though. I've often made the point that there is a tremendous relationship between the beginning of the Bible and the end of the Bible. If you start off spiritualizing the story of the Creation, then you will probably end up spiritualizing what the Bible teaches about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. To me you've got to take both of them for what they say. Mike Riddle: Yes, they go hand-in-hand. What we lose in Genesis, we get back again in the book of Revelation. There's an amazing correlation between those two books. Dr. Reagan: That's right. And they need to be approached from the viewpoint that they are understandable, and that God wants you to understand. When Dr. Henry Morris, the founder of The Institute for Creation Research, wrote a commentary on the book of Revelation, he started out by saying, "I'm writing this commentary because people say that the book of Revelation is hard to understand. They're wrong. It's not hard to understand. It's hard to believe. If you will believe it, you will understand it." The same is true of the Genesis story. Choice of Religions Nathan Jones: Isn't that the same with Evolution. We base our belief in God on faith, but doesn't Evolution also believe what they are taught by faith. Evolution is a faith-based system. Therefore, Evolution is really a religion, isn't it? Mike Riddle: Ultimately, yes, both have to be accepted by faith. But, then it comes down to this matter - what does your faith have to offer you? Your faith in Evolution offers me nothing, because when I ask, "Who am I?" it answers with, "We are just a chance accident." Or, as the Bible teaches, are we made in the image and likeness of our Creator God? Nathan Jones: Evolution offers the freedom to sin, though, right? Mike Riddle: Yes, but that leads one to the ultimate question, "What happens when we die?" Do I just become nothing? Dr. Reagan: Dave Hunt put it this way, he said, "Can you stop and think for a moment about what is the greatest hope of an Atheist? The greatest hope is that there is nothing after death." The Christian's hope is that we are going to live eternally with our Lord Jesus Christ.