(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Thank you very much. We're looking at the series is based on 1st Corinthians 1 and verse number 27 where the Bible reads, But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty. So God is saying in this verse, He is saying that He uses the seemingly simple things or the weak things of the world to basically confound or make foolish the people who think that they are wise, who think that they are mighty in this world. So that's why we see the people that we've looked at so far, people that deny the Lord, they deny His power, they can't even get, you know, God basically stops them in their tracks before they can even get started. They get hung up on the most simple things in life and they can't accomplish anything. God stops them, He confounds them before they even get started with anything that they would actually like to accomplish themselves, which is ironic in itself. So this morning we're going to look at another personality, a very famous personality out there today in the science community. His name is Richard Dawkins, we're going to talk about Richard Dawkins this morning. So who is Richard Dawkins? Richard Dawkins has been around for a very long time, he's written many books, he's an author of course, all of these people are authors, seemingly they can't accomplish anything so they just write books and that's all they can ever accomplish. So Richard Dawkins, who is he? He is an evolutionary biologist, so that's what we're going to focus on this morning. He was a professor, he's an emeritus fellow at Oxford or New College in Oxford which emeritus fellow that's just another way of lifting yourself up to basically say he's retired. He's a retired college professor, he's an evolutionary biologist, so that's his field of study. He was a professor for many years in Oxford and he is a devout or a very anti-God and he's a very devout atheist and he may even say he's agnostic but then he puts himself up there with I believe in God but my doubt of belief in God is my same doubt he would say as his belief in werewolves and vampires and unicorns and things like that. But he's well known for his criticism of creationism and especially the God of the Christian religion, the one true God. He's an author of course, many of these personalities that we look at, they are authors. One of his books include, I'll just name a couple of them to give you an idea of his personality and the things that he writes about and the things that he is about himself. His books are including but not limited to of course. One of his books was The Blind Watchmaker. In the book The Blind Watchmaker, Dawkins basically, turn your Bibles to Romans chapter 1, he basically argues against this watchmaker analogy which is an argument for the existence of God based on the complexity of the world that we see around us. So many people would say, look, you would never look at a watch, you would never look at the complexity of a watch and think, look at all the moving parts, if you've ever seen the inside of a watch or a clock and see all the gears and the timing. You would never look at that and say that was an accident. That came up spontaneously in nature or in the universe or whatever. But Richard Dawkins basically argues against that in his book called The Blind Watchmaker. He's basically arguing against Romans chapter 1 in verse 19 and 20. Look down at your Bibles where God says, because that which may be known of God is manifest in them. So what the Bible is saying here, manifest means shown. God is saying God is shown in them for God hath showed it unto them. Verse 20, for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen. We'll just stop right there. So what God is saying here, what God is saying here is, I have shown, he's talking about the Gentiles, people that have never heard of God, they didn't have the oracles of God, they didn't have the Bible. God is saying the things of the creation show you God, is the creation. What is the creation? It's everything around you. God is saying here in the Bible that he has shown it to every man on earth through his creation. It takes you like one second to look at the person next to you to see God's creation. He's shown it to everyone in the world and he's shown it to everyone much more than just through the person sitting next to you, just the entire universe, the entire creation around you. I saw God just yesterday and saw this waterfall that was a thousand feet tall and just this amazing nature and things that God has created. You would have to be a fool, you'd have to just be confounded to not see God in the creation around you. So that is how God, that's one of the ways God shows us he's there. He reveals himself, which we'll get to that, is one of the things that Dawkins has a problem with with God is God has not revealed himself to us, but God is saying in Romans 1 that he's revealed himself through his creation. It's very obvious. Instead in this book, The Blind Watchmaker, he argues that mutation, natural selection, all these types of things, they're unguided by any designer. He's written another book called The God Delusion, which really just the title of that book really shows you one of the unique things about Richard Dawkins. He's just rabidly anti-God. He goes off and he says religious faith is a delusion and his stances have sometimes created controversy because he's so vitriolic towards God, towards religion in general. Some of his views on God. Before we get into some of the Bible versus what Richard Dawkins believes, his views on God in general are he's different than anyone we've looked at so far. In the case of he thinks religion, he says religion or belief in God is like a virus, he says. He says it's like a virus. He says we will eventually outgrow God and look back. We know this is not going to be true. We know that this is not going to be true, but he says we'll eventually outgrow God and look back at the time that people believed in God as a dark time. So how do you think we will look back on religion if we do ever outgrow God? The same kind of way we look back on when we believe that witches should be burned, that sort of thing. We'll look back on it as a dark period. As a dark time. We know that the opposite is true. Even on Jesus, he says this. I mean, it makes you cringe like reading the things and listening to the things that this man says. I'm scared for him. If that's possible. But he says someone as intelligent as Jesus, Richard Dawkins says, would have been an atheist. And you're just like, what is he even talking about? It just shows you, even the smartest people in the world, this just proves 1 Corinthians 1, 27, the smartest, most intelligent people in the world, it shows you their lack of understanding, their lack of knowledge about even the Bible. Not even, look, they don't believe it. That's one thing. It just shows you their lack of knowledge about what is in the Bible. I mean, Jesus was either God, or he was just a complete fraud and liar. He was one of the two. You know, Jesus claimed to be God. Jesus would be an atheist. That doesn't even make any sense. Dawkins says this about God. About the Christian God of the Bible. He says this. The God of the Old Testament is arguably, this really wraps up Richard Dawkins right here and his belief on God. The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction. Jealous and proud of it, a petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak, a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser, a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. So I mean, that shows you right there, just that statement, how much he hates. He just hates this God right here. I mean, he hates it. So what is his alternative? Turn to 1 Timothy chapter 6. What is his alternative? His alternative, this is what really bothers me, his alternative is science, quote unquote. So his alternative is science. Dawkins is one of the creators, or maybe not the creator, but he's one of the people that is pushing this fallacy that if you believe the Bible and adhere to its teachings, that you are anti-science and nothing could be further from the truth. And the Bible even points this out. I find it interesting that the Bible, that God even knew that this would happen, that he even listed it in the Bible. Look at 1 Timothy chapter 6. Let me turn there. Look at 1 Timothy chapter 6 and look at verse number 20. So he basically says, you know, this is this idea that the scientists of today say that if you're a Bible-believing Christian and you believe the accounts that are in the Bible, you not only are saved, but you believe every word of the Bible, you believe the Bible is literal and, you know, in cases that it is obviously literal and, you know, he said, you know, you're anti-science. I mean, how many times have we heard that, especially over the last couple of years? But look, the point is the Bible, the Bible is science. The Bible contains science. The problem is science, the word, has been hijacked today and the Bible knew that this would happen. Look at 1 Timothy chapter 6. Look at verse number 20. Paul's talking to Timothy. He's giving this preacher advice. He's saying, look, look out for this stuff. This stuff's about to happen. He's going to, this is going to happen to you. He says, oh, Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings. Okay? Stay away from that stuff. Then he says, and oppositions. Oppositions to what? Oppositions to this. This is in Paul's time. This is 2,000 years ago. Imagine this. It was happening then. He's saying there's going to be oppositions to the word of God, of science. He's saying there's going to be oppositions of people saying, hey, science proves against this, but then he says science falsely so called. So he's, look, he's saying the Bible is for science. This is science falsely so called. This is hijacked science. I mean, science is a very simple thing, right? Science is, let's do some science right now. Do we have something here? Let's see. Here. Science is observation and experimentation. That's all it is. Science is observation and experimentation. I have a theory. Here's science. I have a theory that there's some kind of force that's pulling us towards the earth. I have a theory. Let's call it gravity. That's my theory. Let's test it. Proven. There you go. Let's test it again. Proven again, right? Let's test it again. I won't throw anything more, but the point is, I mean, I can test gravity all day long. What if I throw it this way? Still falls to the ground. Proven. I had a theory. I had an idea. I could test it. Proven. That's all science is right there. Okay. They've hijacked science. People like Richard Dawkins have hijacked science, and it irritates me. It irritates me that they've done so, because the Bible has the only scientific explanations for the things that we see today. Now, Dawkins has said so many things that are blasphemous and wrong and uneducated, like his description of God is unforgiving, all these types of things. It would be actually hard to pin down one sermon on this guy. The more I looked into him, he could be a series in itself, Richard Dawkins. But what we will do, since he is an evolutionary biologist, we will look at this idea that he pushes forward of evolution this morning. Let's look at evolution this morning. Dawkins basically has two tenets in his belief system of evolution, which, by the way, keep in mind, evolution is not Dawkins' theory. It's not something he originally came up with. It's just something that he's repeating that he heard from, you know, we all know Charles Darwin came up with the theory of evolution in the 19th century. So Dawkins, he is unique though. He is unique in his belief of evolution, because he says over and over again, he says that evolution is not a theory, evolution is fact. The word theory can be used to mean something speculative and tentative. In everyday speech, it probably usually is used in that sense. Scientists very often use it in a much more positive sense. I think the easiest way is to use the ordinary language word fact. In the ordinary language sense of the word fact, evolution is a fact. Right there, he left science. Right there. Right there, every scientist who is intellectually honest should depart from Richard Dawkins. Whether or not you believe the Bible, you can't say that a theory is fact. Remember back to the first sermon, what do a lot of these intellectual type people do? They make up words, some of them, and then they change the definition of words. Remember fundamental from Jordan Peterson? They change the definition of words. Here he changes the definition of the word theory to say that this is just a fact. Before we get into these two tenets, I have to just give you a little pretext, and we have to talk about fossil evidence real quickly, because I'm going to use that in his two pretexts. But evolutionists, including Richard Dawkins, will lean back on the fossil record, fossils that have been found. Turn to Job chapter 40. They will lean back on this to prove the age of the earth. They will lean back on fossils to prove that God has never, or that God, that man has not existed with dinosaurs and extinct creatures, things like this. But look, there is biblical evidence of man existing with dinosaurs. The fossil record, as I'll show you this morning, the fossil record does as much to prove creationism as it does much more than it does to prove evolution. It's evidence for a flood. It's evidence for the fact that the earth is not 4.6 billion years old, and I'll show you that in a few minutes. But let's just look at some biblical evidence, the historical account of man existing with dinosaurs. Look at Job chapter 40. Job is arguably one of the oldest books in the Bible. I think Job happened sometime soon after the flood. Job was sometime close to post-flood. Job is a very old book in the Bible. Look at Job chapter 40 and look at verse number 15. Job is talking about a creature here. He says, Behold now Behemoth, which I made with thee. He eateth grass as an ox. We see an animal eats grass like an ox. He's not an ox. He eats grass like an ox. Lo, now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. Then look what it says in verse 17. It says, He moveth his tail like a cedar. This animal has a tail that is like a cedar tree. Now, here's another reason we're King James only. I point these out along the way as we find them. Many of the new versions, a lot of the new versions, will have a little footnote that says, talking about Behemoth, this must be a hippopotamus or an elephant, it will say. Now, who has seen the tail of an elephant? I don't have an elephant to bring in here today, but it's got this little kind of corkscrew tail on it or this little flappy tail. It doesn't have a tail of a cedar tree. Have you ever seen a brontosaurus or these dinosaurs that they've found? That is a cedar tree tail. Look at other verses in Job. Look at verse 41. The Bible actually talks about dragons. The Bible talks about dragons, animals that are breathing fire. Look at verse 19 of Job 41. The Bible says, this is talking about Leviathan, this monster that lives in the sea and can fly and all these different things. It says, out of his mouth go burning lamps and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils go a smoke out of a seething pot or a cauldron. His breath kindles coals and a flame goeth out of his mouth. This is talking about a fire-breathing dragon, folks. This is talking about some large animal that lives on land and sea that literally breathes fire. It makes sense, folks, because look, all these drawings and all these paintings of these creatures all over the world, there is all sorts of paintings and historical records on not just walls of caves but walls of buildings that show men fighting with lions, men fighting with bears, and then men fighting with a dinosaur. There's men fighting with real animals that we still have today and then it shows pictures of dinosaurs. The pictures of dragons and slaying these animals are throughout the historical record. So anyway, the fossil record, the fossil record, it's not surprising that we don't see a lot of fossils of men with fossils of dinosaurs because would we be living amongst dinosaurs? Think about that. If everyone in Fresno just stopped living right now, how many tigers would they find amongst us? Because we don't live amongst dangerous predators. But it's also interesting the context that Job is talking about these animals. What is the context that Job is using here? He's using the context of giving glory to the power of the God that created these animals. He's actually proving Richard Dawkins wrong. Job is literally saying, who could tame these animals? Who could even create these animals? These animals are so powerful, he's giving that glory. He's like, if this animal is this powerful and this dangerous and this large, how much more powerful must God be? Is the context that Job is using when he's describing these most powerful animals that he can think of. He's using the biggest, the strongest examples to prove how big and strong God is. Another thing about the fossil record is they found dinosaur fossils that still have soft tissue in them. Just recently in Montana, they found dinosaur fossils with soft tissue in them that proves anybody that knows fossils or anything, they would have to agree that that is less than 10,000 years old. It's basically a mummified dinosaur fossil. It still had skin, it had blood vessels, all these different things that people would agree, even scientists today would agree that they couldn't exist in anything that's a million years old or more. It's thousands of years, that proves thousands of years, not millions of years. We'll talk about that more. The point is, the fossil record, whenever you hear people bringing up the fossil record, it proves the flood more than anything, it proves the story of creation more than anything. I'm going to use that throughout the sermon, so I just wanted to talk about that for a couple of minutes. Dawkins, back to Richard Dawkins, he has two main points that evolution is a fact in his mind. I want to look at those two in the sermon this morning. The first point is this. He says that plants and animals, this is why evolution is a fact. His first main point is that plants and animals have similarities. They have similarities between each other, even into their genetic code. We can see that, we can observe that. He's saying that these similarities that we see, even down to genes, proves evolution is a fact. Let's talk about genes. Did you know that if you look at just the DNA structure of a human being versus a chimpanzee, that their DNA code will match to the tune of 98.8%. To say that there's not similarities, look, there's similarities. We see that. What he's pointing out here is obvious correlation. In order to explain this, I've got to talk about statistics just a little bit. What is statistics? He's saying because things look similar, because there's correlations between the way things look, even down to their genetic code, they must come from each other. One must have come out of the other. This is something that is taught in the study of statistics on the 101 class right here. That correlation does not necessarily mean causation. I don't know if you've ever heard that. What Dawkins is saying is that because we see correlation, it means causation. He's making a very simple error. If we look at statistics, statistics is basically the study of numbers. What we're doing in statistics is we're studying a small group of numbers, and we're trying to study that small group of numbers and predict what is going to happen when larger groups of numbers come out. We're trying to predict future numbers from a small set of numbers. What Dawkins is saying here is that because certain things look the same, they must have come out of or caused each other. In statistics, this is one of the first things that you will learn. Correlation tests. Let me read this for you. Correlation tests for a relationship between two variables, correlation versus causation. Seeing two variables moving together does not necessarily mean we know whether one variable causes the other to occur. This is why we commonly say, this is someone who's teaching statistics, correlation does not imply causation. It may be that there is a third lurking variable that makes the relationship appear stronger or weaker than it actually is. Let me give you some real world examples of you just kind of like, what are you talking about? Here's some real world examples of correlation not causing causation. Did you know that ice cream sales throughout the year in the United States, ice cream sales, if we graphed the sales of ice cream, like starting in January, and we graphed sales of ice cream when they went up and when they went down, they would exactly follow the increase in shark attacks every single year in the United States. So ice cream sales exactly correlate, it's scary, you look at the graph, it's exactly the same. And you're just like, oh man, eating ice cream causes you to be attacked by a shark. What in the world? Or there's some other lurking variable that causes these two to track together. Like I don't know, let's think of one. People eat ice cream at the same time as they go swimming, when it gets warmer in the summertime. So we're like, oh, eating ice cream doesn't cause you to get attacked by a shark. But this is exactly, isn't this, this is simple freshman year stuff right here. He's making simple errors. This guy is over 80, he's 88 years old, he's been doing this for his whole career, and this is the kind of mistakes that these people make. Here's another one for you. Pool drownings, pool drownings in the United States have been tracking nearly perfectly with the, pool drownings across the world, I'm sorry, have been tracking almost perfectly with nuclear energy production in the world. And you're like, oh man, for sure, nuclear power plants, nuclear power generation must cause people to drown in pools. You're like, what? But no, it's much more likely that as the population is increasing, as people are getting more developed in other countries around the world, that nuclear power is increasing and also more people doing better, being more developed, having more swimming pools, are drowning in pools. So there's a third lurking variable. So this is exactly what he's doing. He's saying if two animals look similar, even genetically, he's like, it's a fact that one came from the other. Ice creams cause shark attacks. This is what Richard Dawkins is doing. You won't find many other scientists saying it's a fact. But this guy's like, it's a fact. Turn to Genesis chapter one. Turn to Genesis chapter one. Let's look and see if there's a third lurking variable. Look at Genesis chapter one and look at verse number 24. Genesis chapter one and verse number 24. Look at the front of your bulletin. The Bible says in Genesis 1 24, and God said, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth after his kind, and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind. Again, we see this word kind, kind. And the cattle after their kind, and every little thing after his kind, and God saw that it was good. So I want to explain this idea of kind this morning. So I brought a kind with me to church today. You can stand right in the front of the pulpit. This is a kind. We have a creature here that is a kind. This is a chicken. Don't hand me the chicken, okay? This is a chicken. So the Bible talks about this idea of kind. There's kinds of beasts, and what will bring forth is a kind will bring forth its kind, and another kind will bring forth its kind. So let's look at this chicken. Here we have this kind has some unique features to it. Would you say? It has different features than us. I mean, it has feathers, it has two feet, this chicken has, you have it tight, we're going to drop the chicken. This chicken has wings, look, this is very unique. This chicken has wings, feathers, it has a beak, I mean, there's some very specific features that this creature has, okay? You can go ahead, Jacob, thank you. All that to say this, by the way, the next time you're eating chicken wings, make this observation. So when you get chicken wings, scrape the barbecue sauce off the chicken wings and just look at this for a minute. What you will find is you get two types of chicken wings, right? You get the drumstick, that's what everybody likes, right, the drumstick, but then you get the actual wing itself. If you look at the wing of the chicken wing, if you scrape all the barbecue sauce off, you will notice that it is shaped exactly like an airfoil of an airplane. You will notice that the front bone of the chicken wing is larger and the backbone is smaller and you get a nice airfoil shape. And guess what? We copied that from the bird. We took that from the design of the chicken's wing. But birds do what? They fly. So you say, now we have another kind coming in and it may have, you know, similar features. Now you say like, Pastor Pazarski, why in the world would you bring a duck into church? It's to simply demonstrate this point. Here we have Daisy the duck. Daisy might be stressed out right now, but let me tell you, Daisy lives a charmed life. So we have Daisy the duck. Hold Daisy still. Daisy also has feathers. Daisy has a beak. She has two legs. We should have miked up Daisy. We should have miked up Daisy. Let's see, Daisy. Anyway, Daisy has many of the same features. She has wings. Can we see a wing? Can you hold her? Daisy has wings. Daisy has feathers. Daisy has many of the same features. She has a different type of beak. But the point is, is that Daisy is a different kind, even though she looks very similar. If you looked at her wing bones, they would look very similar to the chicken wing bones. Okay, thank you, Jacob. I think that gets the point across. So the point is, is that here we have two different kinds. And the point is this. Here's the reason I brought up the fossil record. There is no such thing as a duckin'. There is no such thing as a, what would you call, maybe a chuck. There's no such thing as a part chicken, part duck. It never existed. It never will exist. They are not, I mean, they can't crossbreed together and create because they are different kinds. They have many of the same features. They have wings. They have feathers. They have beaks. They have two legs. But they are different kinds. God has made it that way. And in the, you say, well, maybe not today, but hey, where is the, where's the duckin' walking around today? Where's the part duck, part chicken walking around today? Where's the fossil of the duckin'? It doesn't exist. These transitionary species, or kinds, as the Bible would call them, they don't exist. There is no fossil evidence of a half elephant, half horse. You say, oh, maybe it just didn't exist for very long. You think we would find one. We haven't found one. God has put barriers in place where kind comes after its own kind. Only kind can bring forth, look, there's many different breeds of chickens. We can even control these breeds to a degree. We can breed certain traits into animals. We can breed cows that milk more. We can breed cows that have better bone structure and meat structure. We can breed within that kind. But you know what? It's funny because even within kinds, there's limits. Did you know that? Go back to verse number 11 and verse number 12 of Genesis. Even the plants and the trees come forth by their own kind. Now we can mess with that. We can make genetically modified stuff. We make genetically modified seeds, genetically modified all this, but look, God's true when he says only kind will bring forth after his own kind. I can take a seed and I can modify that seed, but guess what will happen? Look at verse number 11. God said, let the earth bring forth grass and herb yielding seed and the fruit tree yielding fruit after what? His kind. The seed in itself upon the earth and it was sown. The grass brought forth and all that and the herb after his kind. So we can take a seed. This is super interesting. We can take a seed and we can modify it and make it so maybe it grows a bigger kernel or it's more they can make seeds that are resistant to certain chemicals and all these types of things. But guess what? That seed that we've modified can never bring forth its own kind. Isn't that interesting? Have you ever heard of heirloom seeds? The reason that people buy heirloom seeds is because genetically modified seeds, what my grandpa would do is he would grow wheat every year and he would sell 90% of his crop and he would keep the best 10% to reseed next year because that kind would bring forth its own kind. But you can't do that with genetically modified crops because it will grow a nice plant the first year, but it can't bring forth its own kind. You can't replant the plant that comes from that genetically modified seed. So you have to keep going back to Cargill and going back to these companies to buy more genetically modified seeds, which is good for business. But God put that in place. You'll see that amongst breeds of animals as well. Every now and then, we have white-tailed deer and we have mule deer, which deer is a kind. And every now and then, a white-tailed deer and a mule deer would mate and you would get it like a cross-breed, you would see a cross-breed, half-mule deer, half-white-tailed deer out in nature. But here's the thing, all the males were always sterile. So they could never, in that case, God put a barrier there where they could just never create that third breed out of those two breeds of that kind. So there's all these barriers in here. But the point is, back to kind, there is no transitionary species. You will not see it. That's why a duck and a chicken, they cannot produce offspring. Even if they wanted to, God has made it so they are one kind and a different kind. But guess what? They have similar features, which is why we brought them in here today to show they have feathers, they have wings, they have the same body structures. Just because they correlate with one another does not mean they came from one another. That is the mistake of evolution right there. And it's very simple, it's something that's taught in other areas, other fields of study at the beginning of those fields of study, like the study of numbers and statistics and things like this. There's no half-elephant, half-horse, but here's what's interesting. There's no half-monkey, half-human, but guess what? Darwin thought there was. Darwin thought, look, evolution is inherently racist from its origins. Darwin thought that nationalities, or nations as the Bible would call it, like the Aborigines, or like African peoples, he thought that they were a lesser version of the human kind, is what he thought. That's what he taught, that's why his book, The Origin of the Species, has a longer title called The Origin of the Species and the Preservation of Favored Races. Evolution on its face is literally racist. It literally teaches that some races are lower and closer to animals than basically white Europeans in Darwin's case. So it just blows my mind that this type of thing is being taught with the beliefs. This is where eugenics comes from, some of the wicked stuff that Hitler was doing comes from. It's this type of thinking. It's wicked, it's evil, and it comes from a bad place. So look folks, species, kinds, as the Bible would call them, is the only plausible explanation for what we see in the fossil record itself. It's the only explanation. And what we see walking around today, which is observation. That's our observation. So that's that. So just because things look similar does not mean, does not prove the fact that one came from the other. Very simple. Very simple mistake. And you're just like, how could people make this mistake? Here's his second tenet. Here's Richard Dawkins' second tenet that tells him that evolution is not a theory, but it is a fact. And it is this. The old earth versus the young earth. Because I believe the Bible account that if you would go, turn to Genesis chapter five. Turn to Genesis chapter five. The Bible gives us accounts to the detailed level where you could actually generally figure out about how old the earth is. And the Bible talks about that. I'll just give you one small example. In Genesis chapter five, look at verse number four. So we have genealogies, but we would also need more information than genealogies. We would need how old people lived. And not only would we need to know how old people lived, we would need to know how old people were when they had children. So we would need to know how old Adam was when he had his son and all this. But the Bible gives us that detail. Look at verse four of Genesis chapter five. And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were 800 years. And he begat sons and daughters. So we know how old Adam was when Seth was born. And Seth lived in 105 years and he begat Enoch. So we get this type of detail in the Bible. We get the type of detail that, of course, before the flood, we know that men lived many, many more years, many more centuries than after the flood. I won't get into that. But we basically get that type of detail in the Bible to where we can say, according to the Bible, that the earth is about 6,200 years old. And instead of 4.6 billion years, as the evolutionists would say. Now, how does Richard Dawkins address this? He addresses this type of old earth versus young earth, that would be us, by just insulting people. He doesn't even address the issues of the Bible and all this. He just throws out these grand insults. People that believe that, I just have lamentable ignorance. Anybody who thinks that the world is less than 10,000 years old, there's an enormous number of creationists, especially in America, but not only in America, do think. The best excuse for them is lamentable ignorance. Ignorance is no crime, but it's something to be remedied by education. Anybody who is not ignorant, anybody who's been shown the facts and still believes the world is less than 10,000 years old, there's got to be something wrong with them. So you've either got to be staggeringly ignorant, which most of them are, or if you're not ignorant, you've got to be insane. He says the ideas in Genesis, he says, are measly, piddly ideas. Look, whether you believe them or not, are they measly? Are they piddly? Whether you believe the Bible or the account in Genesis or not, an account that actually fits everything that we see today is pretty brilliant. Whether or not you believe it, you have to believe that it's a plausible explanation because it fits. This guy is so over the top. What this is, really, by the way, this is like an arguing technique called an ad hominem attack where you don't actually address the technical details of somebody's argument, you just personally attack them. You just say, well, you're crazy. Well, you think that, you're nuts, or you're crazy, you're insane, or whatever. Something is really over the top happened to this guy. He is so over the top against God and the Bible. His vitriol is what sets him apart, again. Let's talk about the age of the earth, though. Let's talk about the age of the earth. Now, let me give you an example. Let me just give you just a thought experiment here. Consider the following example. Let's say that two guys are trying to figure out when World War I started. You got one guy. He goes and he studies several history books. Because really, if I'm asking you or we're debating when World War I started, this is really a historical question, is it not? It's a question of something that happened in the past. It's a historical question. You got one guy. What does he do? You have two guys. They're trying to figure out when World War I started. He just goes and he just studies all these history books. He comes up with the idea that World War I started in 1914 by just going and finding every history book he can find and just reading up on it. Then you have the second student or the second guy that's trying to figure out when World War I started. He takes a different approach. Here's what he does. He goes and he puts on his lab coat and he gets a bunch of chemicals and beakers and he goes and he gets some Bunsen burners. After several weeks, he does all these experiments in a laboratory. After several weeks, he concludes from his experiments that World War I began 3.7 billion years ago. Now, what if the second student though, he held a Ph.D., and he was a professor at a college and he had won all kinds of awards, maybe he won a Nobel Prize. Which one, would this change your mind? Which one are you more inclined to believe? The point I'm trying to make to you is this. The Bible record has never been proven wrong. The Bible record, what do you mean? What in the Bible? Nothing. Nothing in the Bible has ever been proven wrong. The Bible record is the most reliable historical book ever produced. Even if you don't believe the theology of it or anything, it has never been proven wrong historically. But then you have all these experimental dating methods that they are using to come up with these fantastic dates. But they're all based on assumptions. They're all based on assumptions. There's three main assumptions that they use that cause them to be wrong. The first one is they assume that they know the initial condition. They're trying to date a rock, for example. They assume that they know the initial condition of that rock. They know how much of all these chemicals were in the rock when it was formed. The second one is this. They assume that they know that the breakdown of materials, whether it be radioactive materials or carbon or whatever, they assume that that's always been constant over time, which we know that there's been a cataclysmic event that the Bible records called the flood that really changed the rates of a lot of things on the earth. The second one is this. They assume that the system, the system that the rock or whatever they're trying to date, they assume that the system is closed, meaning nothing can interfere with it. Nothing can contaminate it. Nothing can get injected into it through earthquakes or floods or whatever. They make these three assumptions, and it just causes them to be completely wrong in their assumptions. How do I know they're wrong? Because it's been tested. That's how I know. Let me give you an example of just radioisotope. What they do is they'll take a rock, and they know that we'll use potassium-40 and argon-40. Potassium-40, it breaks down, it has a half-life, meaning half of it will decay in 1.3 billion years. I'm not even arguing that. That can be tested. We can look at the rate of decay of potassium-40 or any kind of radioactive chemical, assuming that it's constant. I'll even give them that one for this point. It turns into argon-40. We can look at a rock and say it has some potassium, and it has some argon in it. What they'll do is they'll say, because it has this much argon in it, and it has this much potassium in it, they'll calculate how old it is. The problem is they don't know how much of either of those were in at the beginning of the rock, when the rock was formed. That's a huge problem. That's like if you're into algebra. That's like trying to solve for x when there's two unknown variables in the equation. You can't do it. It's impossible. Look, they've tested it. They've gotten newly-formed rocks from volcanic eruptions. They went and they tested Mount St. Helens. They tested lava formed just 20 years after Mount St. Helens erupted, and they found through this type of ... They knew how old it was. First of all, they were surprised at how much of these daughter isotopes existed in the original sample. That's the first mistake right there. They found that newly-created lava flows from Mount St. Helens were somewhere between 350,000 and 2.8 million years old. Look, it's a pretty big margin of error right there. It's either 20 years or it's 2.8 million years. It's one of the two. There's another volcano in New Zealand that they tested, and same thing. They knew that it was less than 50 years old, and the radioisotope testing produced results that said it was 3.5 million years old. Okay, now look, folks. At this point, we're done here. At this point, if you're a technical person trying to figure something out, you have to throw this out the window. We're done. It doesn't compute. You can't do it this way. There's too much error involved. They simply don't know the condition of the rocks at the beginning. You can see totally how they make the mistake. Look, hopefully I've given you enough this morning. I don't want to take too much more of your time, but to give you enough ... The point isn't to sit here and prove evolution is false. The point is this. It is a theory, and when you read the Bible, it is a very weak theory. This guy comes out and claims that it is fact, but people can go out and they can believe in it. That's one thing, but to say that it is truth is intellectually dishonest for sure. Look, folks, it's just what you choose to believe because the tenets that Richard Dawkins is hanging his hat on, that this correlation equals causation is false. It's false. Science proves it false. The second one is that the old earth is easily explained from the Bible, and these dating methods are easily explained on how they come up with such fantastic ages. Look, here's the thing. If you're trying to prove to somebody that a duck came from a chicken or a chicken came from a duck, and there's no evidence at all of any kind of transitional species there, and then you just throw out, oh, yeah, but it came up over 4.6 billion years. It's a number that is so large that people can't even wrap their head around, and they're like, oh, yeah, maybe in 4.6 billion years that did happen. It's just this fantastic number that evolution theory needs in order to confuse people to the point where they just let go of logic. Here's my conclusion on Richard Dawkins. After looking at, hopefully I'm giving you some things to think about with evolution, but here's my conclusion on Richard Dawkins. He's one of these people that was turned off by false religion, and I've seen this type of person before. He came out of the Church of England. I've seen this happen with Catholics. I've seen this happen with Mormons. I've seen this happen with Jehovah's Witnesses. I've seen this happen with a lot of people. This is one of the dangers of false religion is that completely people get out of it, but then they're just completely turned off at looking for the truth. That's Richard Dawkins. He just got angry. He turned against the whole idea of it instead of like, you know, it's just by these evil twisting of God's word, he got turned off by the whole thing, and he didn't even continue to look and see if there was a biblical truth out there. If maybe there was somebody that was teaching the actual Bible, or if maybe the Bible didn't say what the Church of England said. See, that's the problem. People take the Church of England, they take the Catholic Church, they look at the wicked things that have happened out of these cults and these false religions, and they blame the Bible. But the problem is that's a transition that you shouldn't make either, because the Bible does not say what those religions are teaching. And unfortunately, many people come out of those religions and find the truth, and praise God for that, but many people come out of those religions and just completely turn away from the idea of religion at all, and that is Richard Dawkins. He turned on God, and that's why in 1 Corinthians chapter 1 verse 27, that's why we see that he has done literally nothing with his life. He has created nothing. He has no ideas of his own. I mean look, of all the people we talked about, he is the most unoriginal of all of them. You know, Dawkins, he's simply peddling other people's theories. He's simply peddling, he doesn't even have his own dumb ideas of aliens, he doesn't even have his own, he's just riding the coattails of other people, that's all he's doing. He's just worshipping Darwin, which many other scientists do, but he does it in a vitriolic way against God that is over the top, and is just to enlarge himself and sell books. No new ideas, no new philosophies, his only original trait, we're talking about traits, is that he's just got such over-the-top hatred of God. That's Richard Dawkins. Which is funny in itself, because I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, and I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I don't think you should teach your kids about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, but look, I mean I don't hate the Easter Bunny, I mean I'm not just like, I hate the Easter Bunny, and the Easter Bunny's evil, because like, he's not real. It's fake. And I'm like, yeah, you shouldn't teach your kids fake stuff. But I'm not angry at the Easter Bunny, that would be weird, would it not? If I was just up here every single, you know, every other Sunday, that was just like my hobby horse, and I was just like, that Easter Bunny, why find that guy? You know, look, it's weird. But look, I'm not mad at Santa Claus, he just doesn't exist. You know, Richard Dawkins, he's angry at God. He is angry at God. He actually gave a, he actually gave a interview, and the interviewist, they asked, they asked him this question. They asked him this question, and the question was, what would you say to God, if you die, if you die, and you find out that you're standing in front of God, that God, I mean, imagine if this is going to happen, imagine, the interviewer asks him this, says, if you die and you're standing in front of God, what would you say to him? You could just see the anger in his face, he says, what's going to happen when I die? If I met God, in the unlikely event after I died, I think the first thing I'd say is, well, which one are you? Are you Zeus? Are you Thor? Are you Baal? Are you Mithras? Are you Yahweh? Which God are you? And why did you take such great pains to conceal yourself and to hide away from us? Well, you know what? I think that he knows which one God is. The more I listen to him, the more I realize that, because he only really attacks one specifically, I think he knows which one God is, and I think that God will say, you know, I think he knows that God isn't hiding as well. But the funny thing, and the irony is, Richard Dawkins is 88 years old, he better get ready because that conversation is coming soon. And the Bible will be true when it says that every tongue shall confess and every knee shall bow. And Richard Dawkins is no different. I'm actually a little bit, you know, I get afraid for people when I hear them speak the way that Richard Dawkins speaks because that is not the conversation that he will have with God. So I hope you enjoyed that YouTube interview because it will be quite different when he does stand face to face with Jesus Christ. Richard Dawkins, completely confounded. Thank you. Thank you.