The Lie Of Evolution - Sept 2020

The Lie of Evolution Pastor David Ministries Revised June 2020 2Peter 3:5,6 “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (the Genesis flood) 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:” The Genesis flood is of the utmost importance in the comparison between evolution and creation.

The archaeological evidence left on earth many years ago tells the only physical story we have of what happened. Since the difference between these two concepts is extremely contrary, incompatible and far from each other, the job of coming to an honest conclusion ought to be easy. The one should be close to the physical real evidence and the other should be far from the evidence.

The word “evolution” has been very much misused and incorrectly defined in modern times. Therefore, a clear definition must be given of this word. The main purpose of the modern use of this word was started over a century ago (by Darwin's 1859 “On the Origin of Species”), to give an explanation of the origin of life, because certain people rejected the predominant religious teaching, back then, that God created the world and human beings in six days, approximately six thou-sand years ago. The “theory” of evolution didn’t exist before that. It is exclusively a modern phenomenon. The main purpose of the “theory” of evolution was to state very clearly that no creator was necessary for our existence.

Its very essence is that of atheism.

However, the word “evolution” has been very much misused. For example, some people talk about the “evolution” of the computer. But, everybody knows that the computer had human creators and that its “creation” (not “evolution”) has been a slow and gradual process by human creators all within the last century. The computer could never have “evolved” without creators; it was “created”, it didn't “evolve” all by itself. However, it is more likely that a computer could evolve all by itself than that a human being could evolve all by himself; a 1

human is much more complicated.

The word “development” implies the existence of creators, whereas the word “evolution” implies the non-existence of creators; that it was self-producing.

When people use the word “evolution” concerning things that had creators, it causes a mix-up in people's minds, because they can see very plainly the existence of the things created, thereby inappropriately producing a reinforcement of the belief in the “theory” of evolution applied to the origin of life, without a creator. The subject of whether or not there was a creator becomes irrelevant and/ or insignificant, whereas the existence of a creator should be the central point.

Using the word “evolution” inappropriately confuses people. (See article listed below on: The Consequences of Using Incorrect Terminology.)

The “theory” of evolution also “assumes” that species are always slowly changing into different species,...... which is false. (“assume” means to make an “ass” (donkey's rear end) of “you” and “me”) No specie has ever changed into a different specie. The DNA code itself prohibits that. Children are always different than their parents, but children are always the same specie,..... and not any other specie. All species have variations from one generation to the next, but none of them are changing into a different specie; the variations always have limits. The “theory” of evolution must “assume” that there are no limits.

No fossil of any intermediate form between any two species has ever been found, never, zip, zero, nada. All of the links between all of the species are all missing. 00.00% exist.

It is true that the word “evolution” originally comes from old Latin and that before the modern “theory” of evolution (started by Darwin), concerning the origin of life, it was used in a more general manner, very similar to the word “development”. However, it is very important when dealing with the origin of life and the origin of the planet Earth not to confuse its meaning. Since the formation of the modern “theory” of evolution of life, there has been attached to it a very powerful connotation of an anti-religious and atheistic rejection of the creator “God” that goes along with the package. This atheistic mentality is a danger that has now been automatically attached to the word “evolution”, wherever it is used.

The Bible teaches that, approximately six thousand years ago (more or less) God created the world in six days. (Literal days consisting of 24 hours.

They were not six extended periods of time, as some people propose. Gen. 1:5 “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.”) (Evolution and creation are contrary to each other, and no attempt should be made to combine them or to blend them 2

together.) ...… then God rested on the seventh day as an example for people to dedicate one day a week for rest from regular work and to devote that one day a week to religious worship service. (Gen. 1,2) There is a big difference between the age of the earth being six thousand years, according to the teaching of creation in the Bible, as compared to about six billion years, more or less, according to the “theory” of evolution. (It really doesn't matter exactly how many years, because they're always changing it.)

(Just to make it a nice round number, we could make it a million to one difference.) The questions are: First, where do evolutionary scientists get their number of years from? Second, why do they feel free to change that number whenever they get in the mood, and then teach it as though it's an undeniable fact? The number of years they give is always changing....... and yet they teach it as though it's an indisputable fact.

And third, why do they even need billions of years, anyway? Answer: Since nobody ever actually sees evolution happening in real life, they have to conclude that it happens so slowly that it is impossible to actually see it in progress. Therefore before they begin looking for evidence, they have to assume that there must have been billions of years in the process. So, they end up twisting the evidence to make it fit their previously assumed conclusions. But in reality, the real reason why nobody ever sees evolution happening is because it never happens.

In order to measure the age of the earth, one must examine some sort of process that has been happening on a constant regular basis, assuming that the process has been continuing at the same rate in the past. (In this case, it is necessary to “assume” something, whereas in those other cases “assuming” is incorrect, wrong and irrational. It is important to remember that this type of “assumed” evidence must be considered only “probable” evidence, not absolute evidence (proof).) In the Bible, people have existed since the Garden of Eden, which is a close approximation of the age of the earth. But in evolutionary science, the Garden of Eden is not considered acceptable. They consider it to be a myth or fairy-tale. In the www.e-sword.net free Bible software, they provide a very nice graphical time-line chart from Adam to Christ. About 4,100 years.

Continuing the discussion of using a scientific method for measuring the age of the earth: …....then one must take measurements of quantities of the substances involved in that process which exist here on earth. For example, a constant process here on earth that has been very consistent and regular in its behavior is the falling of cosmic dust onto the earth's surface from outer space (as well as on the surface of the moon and the surface of Mars). But, when 3

those evolutionary scientists measured the speed of that process and the total amount of that substance on the face of the earth (and the moon and Mars), they ended up with a total age very close to the biblical age, approximately 6,000 years.

Notice – they thought that the first space capsule to land on the moon would sink into an enormous amount of cosmic dust and be lost, because there are no weather conditions on the moon to alter its location. But, when the first space capsule landed on the moon they found exactly the quantity of cosmic dust as would be expected for a biblical age of the moon. The difference in quantity is about a million times more for evolution; enough to cover a tall building. XX Not only that, but those little moon-cars with wheels could not work riding on top of billions of years of cosmic dust. This dating method of the age of the earth, moon and Mars was then rejected by the evolutionary scientists because it did not give them the results that they wanted, regardless of the obvious soundness of this method.

The material content of that dust is easily traceable. On earth, much of it that fell on land would have been washed down into the oceans by rain, so that the oceans ought to have everything which fell directly into the oceans plus much of what fell on land. But, they can't find billions of years of it anywhere on earth, not on either land or sea. How could billions of years of cosmic dust disappear from the surface of the earth, moon and Mars? ….. it's not possible.

In addition, in the “theory” of evolution it would be expected that the main ingredient in the content of the layers of sediment ought to come from the cosmic dust which is continually falling on the earth's surface. But the material content of the sediment is much different from the content of cosmic dust.

There have been also MANY, MANY other good and sound dating methods which were also originally proposed and tested by evolutionary scientists (their own people), but those were also rejected and denied because those methods did not give them the results they wanted. Pretty soon those evolutionary scientists had trash cans that were overflowing with rejected dating methods. Eventually, they needed big dumpsters to handle all the abundance of evidence they were throwing out.

The truth is, there is an abundance of sound evidence that the earth is very young, much more evidence than the evidence that the earth is old. (like com-paring an ant to an elephant) Also, this demonstrates how the evolutionary scien-tists start with their assumed theory and then dishonestly try to twist the evidence to make it fit their previously invented conclusions........ and reject the majority of the evidence that doesn't agree with it. (Notice – their conclusions 4

are always formed before the evidence is examined. Christians also form their conclusions before examining the scientific evidence, but that is because they have already received the information from a faithful guide, from God above.

The evolutionists don't have any guide from above. The important question is: which explanation does the evidence fit?)

There are only very few dating methods that the evolutionary scientists use to show an old age for the earth,..... and the only reason why those methods were accepted by them was that they give the oldest age possible, not because they are better methods. However, the vast majority of the best evidence still shows the earth to be very young; the biblical age. In addition, those few methods that give the oldest age are noticeably less stable because they are based on a pro-cess that probably has changed over the years due to things like the Genesis flood. (which the evolutionists also reject) The flood would have caused changes in the earth's atmosphere and crust, which in turn would have caused changes in the aging process of almost every-thing, including humans. The Bible says that people lived much longer before the flood. Noah lived to 950 years of age. Gen. 9:29 (also read: Gen. 5) (Notice – the 2014 film “Noah” is loaded with errors.) (Noah's ark has been seen by witnesses on the top of mount Ararat, in Turkey, usually buried in snow. It is box shaped, not boat shaped, as clearly stated in the Bible. Mount Ararat is not the tallest moun-tain, but it is a very difficult mountain to climb. Therefore, it is not believable that the construction of that object took place in that location. (Its box shape was one of the few things they got right in the 2014 film “Noah”.) Its purpose was to float, not travel. It was also the right size for the job; that box shaped construction on the top of that mountain is the same size and shape as Noah's arch clearly stated in the Bible.) Gen 6:15 “……. The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.”

(Notice that there was never any rain before the flood. It was much more humid then and a good layer of dew watered the ground every morning. Gen. 2:5,6) (There were no rainbows in the sky before the flood. God made a promise by the rainbow, after the flood, never to destroy the earth by water again. Gen. 9:13-16) Fossils themselves cannot be formed unless they are buried quickly and entirely, as in a flood. A plant or animal which dies under normal conditions, out on open land, never, never, never forms into a fossil. Trees or animals that die in normal conditions out on open land always rot, decompose and fall apart (or get eaten by other animals/insects) before they could ever be formed into fossils. Without the flood, fossils of entire creatures in sediment underground 5

could not exist.

What's more, even with their supposed billions of years, canyons like the Grand Cannon could never have been formed by that teeny weeny river that flows at its base. The Grand Cannon must have been formed by a giant flood.

In the oceans, hundreds of underwater cities have been found which obviously were at some time in the past above the water line of the ocean. There are more than 200 known underwater cities in the Mediterranean alone. Many of those underwater structures are explained very extensively in the History Channel's documentary series “Ancient Aliens”, 2010, season 2, episode 3.

2Peter 3:5,6 “For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: (the Genesis flood) 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:” In the original Greek: 2Peter 3:5,6 “λανθανει γαρ αυτους τουτο θελοντας οτι ουρανοι ησαν εκπαλαι και γη εξ υδατος και δι υδατος συνεστωσα τω του θεου λογω 6 δι ων ο τοτε κοσμος υδατι κατακλυσθεις απωλετο” The Genesis flood is of the utmost importance in the comparison between evolution and creation.

The most widely used scientific method to determine the age of fossils (not rocks) used by evolutionists is by a process known as carbon dating, a technique that measures the rate of decay and radioactivity in an organic object.

Carbon-14 is not a stable isotope, so it decays over time, whereas carbon-12 does not decay, so by measuring the two against each other, they're able to get a general age. In order to do carbon dating, you need organic material. You need wood or bone..... something that lived. A piece of stone can't be carbon dated.

This method is only used for younger fossils, but for fossils that are supposedly millions of years old, they say that there is no scientific method that will allow anyone to date the object or bone itself. (Which is another lie) (Notice – This is another case when they don't get the results they want, (like the cosmic dust on the moon) so they find a deceptively covert way to reject their own methodology, just for certain cases, without letting anyone know that their own methodology dis-proves their own theory,...... and then find a different way to get the results they want.) In other words, when they carbon date a dinosaur bone they get a very young age, which they don’t want. So, they inappropriately conclude that carbon-dating doesn’t work on dinosaur bones, and therefore they have to use a different method.

They say they have to date a dinosaur bone according to the age of the deposits in which it is found. In other words, they select an object next to where 6

the bone was found and use that, assuming its proximity must be a result of being the same age. (How can they date an object next to the bone, but not the bone? Something smells fishy. More than likely, the object they use has an assumed age. They probably don't even date it. (But you're not supposed to notice that.) They probably just look at it and give it any age they want, claiming that it has a repu-tation of regularly being found next to other objects of the assumed age they whim-sically decided to give it. In other words, the object has the age they assumed because they assumed the age it has. They present evidence as fact, which is nothing more than their own whimsical invention rather than scientific evidence.)

Of course, they can also try different objects and get different results.

Then, they can just pick the one that gives them the assumed age they already knew they wanted, before they started, which they already knew they wouldn't get if they used carbon dating on the dinosaur bone. Carbon dating cannot be used on any fossil to give a very old age, because there are no very old fossils.

Carbon-dating never gives a super old age on any fossil. (ALL fossils were formed during the same flood approximately 4,000 years ago.)

(I repeat – the reason they have to assume the earth is billions of years old is because in real life nobody ever sees any species change into different species. Therefore they conclude that the process of species changing into other species must happen so slowly that it takes such a super long time to happen that it had to have taken millions of years. But the truth is that nobody ever sees it happening because it never happens.)

Notice how they completely ignore the level of sediment in which the bone is found. (All this doesn't make sense, does it? It smells fishy. That's because they don't want to tell anyone that their own dating methods disprove their own theories. The real reason they won't carbon-date a dinosaur bone itself is that their carbon-dating methods give them an age that they don't want. They must reject their own methodology without letting anyone know that they are rejecting it. How is it possi-ble that they can carbon-date other bones, but not a dinosaur bone?) They always reject any evidence that doesn't agree with their theory.

Lies, lies, lies, lies. Their trash cans , rather, big dumpsters are overflowing with an abundance of their own rejected evidence.

The dating methods they use to date things that are supposedly millions of years old are three main types: radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. All of these are classified as Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating), which are techniques used to date either rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known 7

decay rates. However, these dating methods have to assume that the rate of decay has always been constantly the same over a very long time, which is impossible to prove and is probably incorrect.

It should also be remembered that when God created Adam, he was not created as a new-born baby. He obviously would have died, not being able to even feed himself. Adam was created with an appearance of age, even though he was the same age as a new-born baby. Likewise, it is possible that God could have created the earth with an appearance of age. Even though it is unlikely that God created the earth with things like an accumulation of cosmic dust already on it. Maybe it was something like how when God created the stars. We know that light takes a certain amount of time to travel from such long distances as the stars. But, in this case, God created light first, and then after creating light, He created the stars and the sun. So, when God created the stars, He also created the rays of light already on route traveling to the earth.

Going back to carbon-dating ...‌.. carbon-dating also assumes that the rate of decay of radiocarbon, carbon-14, has always been constantly the same over a long period of time. But likewise, this is an assumption which is probably incorrect. It is impossible to prove, and probably not true because carbon-14 is produced as a result of certain cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere. But if those cosmic ray interactions changed in the past, which they certainly would have done if the Genesis flood was true, then the production of carbon-14 that is present in the at-mosphere at the time when it was fixed in whatever fossil that is being tested, will not have been the same as it is now, thereby giving them inaccurate results.

It is possible that before the Genesis flood (about 4,000 years ago) there was an enormous constant layer of water vapor in the earth's atmosphere that would not have been there any longer after the flood (During the flood it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Modern natural cloud formations cannot produce rain for 40 days and 40 nights.) ..... that layer of water vapor was different than cloud for-mations that produced regular rain after the flood. (Before the flood it never rained, neither were any rainbows ever seen in the sky. (Gen 9:12-15) It was much more humid then (which slowed down evaporation) and a good layer of dew watered the ground every morning. Gen. 2:5,6) That water vapor layer in the atmosphere was probably in a different position than cloud formations afterwards, too. (God created it that way from the begin-ning.) (It would have produced no rain until the flood.) It would have been there constantly, kind of like the ozone layer is now. It would have assisted the ozone layer in protecting against harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun, which in turn would reduce the aging process of almost everything, especially humans.

8

This is exactly what would throw those evolutionary radioactive dating methods completely off.

That extra layer of water vapor would also produce a greenhouse effect on the entire earth, which would explain why the north and south poles were ice free many years ago, before the flood. (Ancient maps of Antarctica have been found that show the exact land formation with no ice on it. Also, notice that those ancient maps show places, like the Caribbean, where ocean water is now very shallow, as land. Quite obviously, back then the ocean water level was lower than it is now.) That extra constant layer of water vapor would also explain why there was a change in air-pressure, which would cause other unusual changes in how plants and animals grow. In some modern experiments, they double atmospheric air-pressure inside an airtight chamber which causes changes such as small cherry tomato plants to grow to the size of trees and produce giant tomatoes. Many animals grew to much larger sizes in those days. Even very large footprints of humans in fossilized mud have been found.

The “theory” of evolution also teaches that the levels of sediment in the ground are progressively older as you dig down. Supposedly, older levels are always under younger levels and older fossils are always found under younger fossils. But in reality, what is actually found is a mass of chaos like what would be expected in a gigantic world-wide flood. At times, (not often) what is supposed to be younger levels of sediment are found in very large areas under supposedly older levels of sediment. All fossils are always found in random levels, as would be expected in a flood. Truth or Lie? Are the fossils out of order? When the evo-lutionists say the facts are the opposite, the observers must take a look for them-selves. Be careful, evolutionists are liars.

Sometimes, fossils of entire trees, including roots, are found standing upright through many levels of sediment; exactly what would be expected in a flood. In paleontology this is called a, “polystrate fossil”, commonly found in coal deposits. In fact, if you stop and think about it, regardless of the fact that most fossils are found lying in a horizontal position, the width of the body itself would have to con-sist in many levels (ages) of sediment. How many years of naturally forming sedi-ment would it take in order to cover the thickness of a dead carcass lying on the ground? And how could the remains of that dead animal stay intact during all those years?…... It couldn’t!!! Underground fossils cannot be formed without a flood! (Notice – the phrase “polystrate fossil” is never used by evolutionary pale-ontologists. Its very existence disproves evolution, so they cannot even use the word. Most dictionaries won’t even list it.)

Trees or animals that die in normal conditions out on open land always rot, decompose and fall apart (or get eaten by other animals/insects) before they 9

could ever be formed into fossils. They must be buried quickly and entirely, as in a flood, or they don't form into fossils. Also, if an animal died under normal conditions, how many years would it take for naturally forming sediment to cover the animal? Mil-lions? What would happen to the remains of the animal/tree in the meantime? Trees completely decompose in a matter of a few short years, with nothing like long lasting bones left behind. (So, how could there exist fossils of trees? Without the flood, fossils of trees are impossible.) Since the Genesis flood must be true, then all of the fossils and sediment are exactly the same age. They were all buried, in the same flood, at the same time, approximately 4,000 years ago.

This also explains why there are giant deposits of vegetation and animal life which have formed into petroleum under the ground. If those plants and animals died slowly year by year, under normal conditions out on open land, they would never have formed those giant underground deposits of petroleum.

Those depo-sits must have been formed in one single massive event, a giant world-wide flood pushing all those plants and animals into one area and then covering them with sediment. Without the flood, those giant underground deposits of petroleum could not exist!!! Evolutionary scientists cannot provide any other explanation for the existence of those deposits of petroleum. Those massive deposits of petroleum are what provide the enormous production of the entire energy source to run modern machinery, like gasoline for cars.

Their dating methods don't give consistent ages for the levels of sediment, which is why those evolutionary scientists always ignore the levels of sediment whenever they use their dating methods. All the levels of sediment are the same age. This is why none of the evolutionary paleontologists use levels of sediment to date any of the fossils they find, nor do they ever bother to date the levels of sedi-ment. (They already know that the results won't agree with their “theory”, which they teach as though it is a fact. They also know that all fossils are always found in random levels, which they refuse to admit.) This also means that their “theories” about the different ages (periods), the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous are all a bunch of hokum.

Obviously, the dating methods that the evolutionary scientists use are not stable. In one case a single rock was dated at 516,000,000 years old. While the same rock was dated at 1,111,000,000 years old using a different method.

And the same rock dated at 1,588,000,000 years old using a third method. In addition, they are using the methods dishonestly, stretching them to fit their “theory”. A live snail was one time dated to be 100,000 years old.

They never date the sediment itself. They supposedly date objects found in different random levels of sediment (which they can easily twist however they want), and ignore which level they were found in. How is it possible that they 10

can date an object next to a dinosaur bone but not the dinosaur bone itself?

(Smells fishy!) Answer – they know how to select whichever object they want and come up with any results they want..... and objects which they date at extremely different ages are always found in random levels, in any of the levels of sediment, which they refuse to confess openly.

There have also been found, in numerous different locations, fossils of human footprints running through fossilized mud along with dinosaur footprints.

Where the two paths cross, the human footprint actually steps inside the dinosaur footprint. The “theory” of evolution teaches that the dinosaurs were extinct millions of years before the first humans existed. This is another example of evidence that the evolutionists have to throw in the trash. (See video: “The Delk Track” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA) When Marco Polo first went to China, the emperor there had “dragons” (dinosaurs) as royal pets. In the enormous Likouala swamp in the Congo, central Africa, 50 foot crocodiles have been seen. At www.youtube.com there are videos of Nile river crocodiles that look that long. Search for “crocodile attacks” on www.youtube.com. In addition, other larger dinosaurs have been seen, by local natives, which always chase away all of the normal size crocodiles and hypos. The local natives there have seen those dinosaurs regularly. But, you'll have to excuse them; they didn't know that those animals were extinct millions of years ago. All they know is that they've seen them. (See documentary called: Dinosaurs and the Bible) Thousands (not hundreds) of sightings of the Loch Ness monster have been reported in Scotland. Even in America, near Burlington, Vermont, in Lake Cham-plain there have been many sightings of a creature very similar to the Loch Ness monster. The local people there call it: Champ. The sightings of Champ go way back to the Native American Indians before the first European settlers came to America.

The Bible talks about the existence of giant creatures on earth existing at the same time that human beings lived. The biblical description sounds like a fire breathing dragon (dinosaur). (Job 41) There are many ancient legends of valiant men who go out to slay a fire breathing dragon, who were afterwards treated as heroes. (example: Beowulf. The real story of Beowulf (not the liberally altered movie) can be downloaded free at www.gutenberg.org) (also, there is a Norse legend called the “Völsunga saga” from which Richard Wagner, the German classical composer, made his opera “Der Ring des Nibelungen” which includes Wagner's famous piece, “Ride of the Valkyries”.

(See it on www.youtube.com with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra) It is the legend of how Sigfried the hero rescues the princess Broomhilda from the fire breathing dragon, named Fafnir.) (Also, Web search: fire breathing dragons) 11

This heroic killing off of those dangerous creatures is a much more realistic explanation for the almost, but not entire, extinction of the dinosaurs.

Before mo-dern firearms were invented, a poisoned arrow would have done the job. (In north America, in the last few centuries, wolves, jaguars, buffalo and grizzly bears al-most became extinct, because people tried to kill them off. They shot them down as often as possible.) (Also, the ice age following the flood may have been respon-sible for killing many of the dinosaurs.)

Interestingly, in many museums they discovered that dinosaur bones (especially Tyrannosaurus Rex) are radioactive and have to be treated with special lead paint in order to prevent danger to the people visiting the museum. It is pos-sible that ancient man killed off many of the dinosaurs using radioactivity.

(Read about the technological advancements before the flood in the article listed below: Angels are Aliens, Aliens are Angels.) The phrase “see article” means to “see article”. It’s amazing how people have questions and those questions have been answered in the designated article, and I tell them to “see article”, yet they don’t see the article which would answer their questions.

Even in modern times, when they first discovered radioactivity, they soon discovered that it was very lethal. This may also explain why they can't use their normal radioactive dating methods on dinosaurs; they always get results they do not want..... and their trash cans , rather, many big dumpsters are already over-flowing with rejected evidence.

In many ancient drawings, engravings and sculptures done by people many years ago, there has been found an abundance of dinosaurs (dragons).

Some-times those depictions show dinosaurs eating people....... or at other times they even show a person riding on the back of a dinosaur. On the History Channel do-cumentary “Ancient Aliens” (season 4, episode 10) it shows many examples of these.

In modern times, they have the bones of dinosaurs in museums. But for the cases of bones dug out of the ground, the appearance of the skin and flesh can only be guessed at. Whereas, in those ancient drawings, engravings and sculp-tures, those artists show the outer appearance in reality how they saw the living animal for real.

Some years ago it was commonly taught that humans evolved from apes.

Notice that this theory was originally proposed with no evidence whatsoever. It was assumed simply because the body parts of apes are very similar to humans. Afterwards, numerous times, fossils of intermediate forms between ape and man were found, (the “missing link”) always using very scanty meager fragments of bones. So scanty, that it was very easy for them to invent anything 12

they wanted. In addition, those bone fragments were usually found in different places and pro-bably didn't even belong to the same creature. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. But every time there were other highly respected evolutionary scientists (their own people) who disproved the validity of those fossils. How about that?! An honest evolu-tionist?! WOW!!! (Maybe you think I’m just kidding. The chances of finding an honest evolutionist is about the same probability as finding an honest politician. Ha, ha, good luck in trying to find one of those.) No real “missing link” between ape and man has ever been found.

This is why it is called “missing”.

As a result, eventually it was necessary to change the “theory” and propose that man did not evolve from apes, but rather, apes and men both evolved from a “common ancestor”, which brings up some questions. First, if their evidence that man evolved from ape was so meager and easily disproved, then, is their evidence that man and ape both evolved from a “common ancestor” also so meager and easily disproved? (Answer: Just like the first theory, they also proposed the se-cond theory with no evidence whatsoever, zip, zero, nada. They didn't even have a name for the “common ancestor”. It didn't have a name because it never existed. But, they were expecting to find some evidence........ eventually....... some day. No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.)

Second, what is that common ancestor? Why doesn't it have a name?

(An-swer: It doesn't have a name because it doesn't exist, nobody has ever seen one..... and there is still no believable evidence that it ever did exist. If it did exist, they would have no need to use the term “common ancestor”, they would be saying: “man and ape both evolved from ________”. But, they can’t fill in the blank because there isn’t any such a thing. They invented this “theory” with no evidence whatsoever. It was proposed simply to dodge the issue that they could never find any intermediate forms for their first “theory”. All of the links are mis-sing!!! No fossil of any creature half-way between any two species has ever been found. Not just between man and ape, ANY TWO SPECIES!!!)

Third, evolution teaches that species are always improving due to “natural selection”,....... so, why did man improve but the apes got worse, which supposed-ly “evolved” from the same “common ancestor”? (Reverse evolution, a clear con-tradiction) Fourth, why are there no modern species more similar to humans? And fifth, why do modern apes continue to exist, which are supposedly inferior (reverse evolution, a clear contradiction), but the “common ancestor” is now ex-tinct (and can’t be found), which is supposed to be superior to modern apes? (Reverse “natural selection”, a clear contradiction) (Notice – if “natural selection” were true, no apes would even exist; they would have all changed into human beings. Why would any of the inferior creatures still exist?)

13

It is true that paleontologists give a name to every fossil they find, but none of the fossils ever found have they officially given the honor of being that “common ancestor”. Why? First, all of those supposed candidates for the “common ances-tor” look like some form of extinct apes, which would be a big fat embarrassment because they have already confessed that man did not evolve from ape. (Notice – those fossils don't look like “intermediate forms”, they look like apes, pure 100% apes.)

Second, none of those supposed candidates for the “common ancestor” have a “link” (intermediate form) to the specie before or after it. What good is it, if it is a dead end? No intermediate form between any two species has ever been found. There aren't any. Third, they don't want the embarrassment of having someone come along and disprove it, just as it has already happened to all the other supposed “intermediate forms”, which was why they had to change their “theory” to man and ape both evolving from a “common ancestor” instead of man evolving from ape. Notice – the embarrassment is even more intense when it is one of their own people, an evolutionary scientist, who disproves their false “inter-mediate forms”, which are now called “missing links”. Now, nobody ever attempts to disprove their “common ancestor” because they have learned how to invent a “common ancestor” without really having one.

Fourth, lately they have been using the general term “Hominids” for that sup-posed “common ancestor”, (why is the word “Hominids” plural but the “common ancestor” is singular? Answer -- they don't want to pick one so that it can't be dis-proved.) This is a deceptive way of inventing a name for something that should have a different name; don't forget, they all look like a group of extinct apes.

Those paleontologists have found a few fossils of different kinds of extinct apes in the last few decades that look extremely different from each other. So, they put all those different kinds of extinct “apes” into one inappropriate group and changed their name to: “Hominids”. (Web search: Hominid fossil images) Take a look at them. Even a child can tell they don't belong in a group other than “apes”, and if they don't belong in a group other than “apes” then they shouldn't have a name other than “apes”. THEY ARE “APES”, AND SHOULD BE CALLED “APES”, NOT “HOMINIDS”. The absence of a name is an extreme embarrass-ment to the “theory” of the “common ancestor”, which should not be a diversified group, but rather an individual specie. The “common ancestor” has no name because it does not exist!!!

This name problem is kind of like taking a gorilla, a chimpanzee, an orangutan, a baboon and a small Capuchin monkey and putting them all in the same group and giving them a new name. (and then claiming that the entire diversified group is somehow the one and only “common ancestor”) (Internet search: ape 14

images. See how many different types there are.) Normally, the name “apes” could be used, but the evolutionists can't use that name because the theory they invented, when they had no evidence, states that ape and man both “evolved” from the same “common ancestor”. So, the name “apes” won't work, despite the fact that the “Hominids” are nothing but a bunch of extinct “apes”.

Therefore, it can be concluded that those “Hominids” are just different species of extinct “apes” with a new name slapped on them to avoid embarrassment, so that they can continue with the second theory they invented, with no evidence, rather than going back to the first theory they invented, with no evidence. People don't trust scientists who are always teaching their theories as absolute and un-deniable facts and then changing those theories and then start teaching the new theories as though they are absolute and undeniable facts,...... not theory. (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.)

The existence of extinct species of apes does not mean that they were changing into something else. (Some people say that now there are many more extinct species than living species. Some say that 97-99% of all species that existed in the past are now extinct.) The “theory” that species slowly and gradually change into other species is falsely assumed by the evolutionists with no evi-dence whatsoever. (“assume” means to make an “ass” (donkey's rear end) of “you” and “me”.)

The name “Hominid” is used instead of “ape” to avoid the embarrassment of going back to the first “theory” that man evolved from apes, which they have al-ready confessed is not true. They insist on sticking to the second theory which they invented, when they had no evidence, rather than going back to the first the-ory they invented, when they had no evidence. The first “theory”, that man evolved from apes, they used to teach in universities as an absolutely undeniable fact. Now, they teach the second “theory” as an absolutely undeniable fact,..... not “theory”. They themselves have changed their undeniable facts. (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.)

Also, it is more difficult to disprove a group rather than an individual fossilized creature. Except for the fact that the “group” does not even look like it is composed of creatures that belong in any other “group” other than “apes”. And how could such a diversified group all be the single ancestor of any one specie?

(They still refuse to select any particular one of all those “ Hominids ”, rather extinct “apes”, as the one and only “common ancestor” of both ape and man.

(How can an “ape” be a “common ancestor” between “ape” and man?) Even back when they were teaching that man evolved from apes, they refused to select any particular ape, among the extremely diversified group, as the one and only ancestor of the human race. Now, they insist that the entire extremely 15

diversified “group” they call “Hominids” is the one and only “common ancestor”.)

But, they knew they could get away with slapping any ol' thing together, be-cause almost all the leaders in American universities hate God so much that they'll go along with the “theory” of evolution anyway, no matter how ridiculously it is pre-sented. What do they need any scientific evidence for? They know they don't need any real evidence. Those people will accept it anyway, no matter what. (This is a religious matter, not a science matter. The purpose of the “theory” of evolution is to deny the existence of God.) After they've slapped the new name (Hominids) on those extinct “apes”, then they contract an artist to invent a creature (drawing or sculpture) that looks exactly half-way between ape and man. (Notice – the “common ancestor” is not supposed to be half-way between ape and man. They started the lie of inventing artistic fabri-cations of non-existent half-way creatures between ape and man back when they were teaching that man evolved from apes. But, what else can they do now? No-body has ever seen the “common ancestor”, so it’s not possible to make a drawing or sculpture of something that has never been seen before.) (Not only that, but it is not possible to make one single image of an extremely diversified group, like the “Hominids ”, rather extinct “apes”, so the artist just makes an image of a human and changes it a little to make it look half-way ape-ish, and then sticks some fur on it. Also, don't forget, all the Hominids look like apes.)

They don't even have to worry about making their art work look like any of the fossils of those extremely different looking extinct “ Hominids ”, rather, extinct “apes”, which look like apes. (It's not necessary for them to select one.

Nor is it necessary for the artist to make the art work look like any of the fossil evidence.) They know that the people who go along with the “theory” of evolution don't really care about any real scientific evidence. They've already made up their minds before they have even looked at the facts.

Try asking them which one of the Hominids are they trying to make their art work look like. Rest assured, they won't say. Just like how they wouldn't say back when they were teaching that man evolved from ape; which ape? (a gorilla?, a chimpanzee?, an orangutan?, a baboon?, a Capuchin monkey?) If they never select one,…... it can never be disproved.

And voilà, their artist has created the supposed “common ancestor”,…..... which looks exactly like those other artistically invented creatures they made back when they were teaching in universities that man evolved from apes. How about that!?! The artistically fabricated portrayal of the evidence for their second “the-ory” looks exactly like the artistically fabricated portrayal of the evidence for their first “theory”. (Remember, all the artist really did was to half-way ape-iffy an image of a human being and stick some fur on it. Don't forget, all the 16

“Hominids” look like apes. Remember, the “Hominids” supposedly evolved into apes, so how could they look like apes? Well, since nobody has ever seen the “common ancestor” it’s impossible to make a drawing of it. So, the only thing they can do is to make the same ol’ half-human/half-ape artwork they did before.

But, you’re not supposed to notice that.) In fact, now they don't even need an artist. They could just use those same ol’ drawings and statues they used before. The museums and science books could just slap a new name on the old art work. (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.)

Interestingly, when they first started teaching their theory of a “common an-cestor”, the science books didn't use art work for the “common ancestor”. In their science books they showed a time-line with drawings of all the species along the supposed linage of the history (supposed evolution) of the human race. Notice that none of the creatures on the time-line had any intermediate forms between any of the species. All of the links between all of the species have always been missing. 00.00% exist. They have a perfect score: absolute zero.

Those paleontologists have spent an enormous amount of time trying to find just one (missing) link between man and the supposed previous “common ances-tor”. But they normally don't tell anyone that they don't have any intermediate form between any of the species. Every intermediate form is missing!!! No interme-diate fossil between any two species has ever been found. 00.00% exist. They have a perfect score: absolute zero.

In their science books, back then (before they invented the name “Hominid”), at the end of the supposed linage there was a drawing of a man next to a drawing of an ape with a divided arrow to both coming from the same question mark: “?”. Obviously, instead of a drawing of a creature, they used the question mark, “?”, which represented the “common ancestor”. They used a question mark, “?”, because they didn't know what the supposed “common ancestor” look-ed like. Nobody had ever seen one, so it was impossible to make a drawing of it. They had no evidence at all. The “common ancestor” never existed!!! Yet they were teaching it as though it was a fact.

What difference does it make whether or not they had any scientific evidence? They know that the people who go along with the “theory” of evolution don't really care about any real scientific evidence. They had already made up their minds that evolution is a fact,…... not a theory. (This is a religious matter, not a science matter. The purpose of the “theory” of evolution is to deny the existence of God.) So, they have no evidence whatsoever that any of those extremely different looking supposed “common ancestors” (inappropriately named “Hominids” in-stead of “apes”) are ancestors of human beings at all. They have 17

assumed that with no evidence. Those creatures did not slowly and gradually change into hu-man beings and those evolutionary scientists cannot prove that they did. They would need many fossils of creatures at every minor alteration from the common ancestor, at every slightest stage, all the way to human beings. But that evidence does not exist. They can't even find one half-way between, much less can they find a series of stage-by-stage gradual changes.

To do that they would have to actually pick one.

There ought to be an abundance of those things, at every slightest stage of change. (according to the “theory” of evolution) There are people who wear T-shirts that have drawings of an ape changing into a human, a drawing for each slightest stage of change. But that is pure fiction, which doesn't exist in real life. Oh yeah, there are museums that paid an artist to make some fake sculpture figures that look like how a slowly changing creature ought to look, like the artist did on the T-shirts. But that's not real, it's pure art work. Lies, lies, lies, lies. Also notice how easy it is to do between ape and man because the body parts are very similar. But, try to imagine what the half-way body parts would look like between species that aren’t so similar. Nobody could imagine it because it isn’t possible, nor has anyone ever seen such a thing.

The only real thing they can show is that they have found only a few fossils of extremely different kinds of extinct “apes” that are no longer living, which they don't want to confess are nothing but “apes”. (Note – those creatures are not in-termediate forms. They are apes. 100% pure apes.) So, they slap on a different name to avoid the embarrassment of going back to their first “theory” that man evolved from ape. People don't trust scientists who are constantly changing their “theory” and then teaching the new “theory” as an undeniable fact, when they used to teach the previous “theory” as an undeniable fact.

If it were true that those creatures were ancestors of human beings then they could take any of the modern apes and breed them until they slowly and gradually change into human beings. But they can't do that, and never will, because it's im-possible. The DNA code itself won't permit it. No specie has ever slowly and gra-dually changed into a different specie. God created all the species to stay within their own groups. Each specie has limits to how much it can change, from one ge-neration to the next. The “theory” of evolution must reject the existence of those limits. No fossil of any intermediate form between any two species has ever been found, never, zip, zero, nada. All of the links between all of the species are all missing. 00.00% exist. They have a perfect score: absolute zero. xx Any of the more recently found evidence of such intermediate forms should be examined with the greatest suspicion. Those evolutionary scientists 18

have a long standing reputation of lying and stretching things to make them fit their “theory”. In addition, they also have a long standing reputation of rejecting, twist-ing or ignoring the majority of the evidence that doesn't fit their “theory”, like the majority of the sound dating methods that give a very young age for the earth, (The difference is a million to one. The number “million” is very large, not small.) or like how all fossils are always found in random levels of sediment.

Every single paleontologist knows it, but they never openly face the fact and confess that it doesn't fit their “theory”. They know their “theory” is a lie...... and they like it that way. They're not in the truth business, they're in the lie business.

Whenever a young person is starting out as an evolutionary scientist, they have to learn the customary evolutionary style of presentation from older scientists. Otherwise, they run right into a “brick wall”, kind of like a wild bird inside a building for the first time. The bird flies directly at a window thinking that he's going to fly out through the opening, but then the bird hits the glass, and sometimes hurts him-self badly. Any new young scientist has to learn how to dodge the “brick walls” that disprove evolution, in order to progress. They have to learn how to lie in order to get around the truth: the “brick walls”. They cannot progress without knowing that evolution is a lie.

At first, the new young evolutionary scientists don't know how much evidence has already been thrown out in the trash. Otherwise, being new in the trade, they might start looking for what they think is a good idea, new evidence, without realizing that it has already been thrown out in the trash. After all, what would happen if they tried to date the age of the earth, levels of sediment or a dinosaur bone? Or, even worse, what if they accidentally disproved one of the intermediate fossils? They have to learn to keep their stupid mouths shut!!!

They have to learn how to keep the evidence that has already been thrown in the trash, ………. in the trash, without digging it up again. The older scientists do not like having to look at that stuff all over again. Those youngsters have to learn how to just follow standard procedures without asking questions. They also have to learn that they don't need any real evidence at all. They have to learn to lie, and get good at it. (It's impossible to progress without consciously knowing that their “theory” is a lie.)

The evolutionary scientists don't really need any evidence anymore, because they already have almost everyone believing that the “theory” of evolution is un-deniably true. All across America, in every major university, the “theory” of evo-lution is taught as a fact for which they no longer need to bother with presenting evidence. They always teach it as though it is undeniably true, 19

usually with no evidence presented whatsoever. They also teach it as being very important and are constantly pushing it even when it's irrelevant to the subject being taught..... And the meager evidence they, on rare occasion, bother to present is always twisted somehow and irrelevant to evolution, proving nothing. (This is a religious matter, not a scientific matter. Remember, the main purpose of the “theory” of evolution is to deny the existence of God.) If you are standing in a group of ten thousand people who are all looking up and saying that the sky is green, that doesn't mean that the sky is green.

Large groups of people all saying the same lie can be very persuasive on neutral obser-vers. The truth is that the sky is blue and those ten thousand people are all liars. In science those evolutionists love doing things like that.

They know perfectly well that the sky is not green, but they know how influential a large group of people can be.

Those universities are hereby disqualified. Their diplomas, in these fields of study, are hereby rendered incompetent/dishonest by the abundance of their own evidence against them, which they themselves have rejected. Take a look through their trash cans , rather, many big dumpsters at how much of their own abun-dance of evidence they have thrown out because it didn't fit their theory.

(By now, they need many large garbage trucks to haul it all away.)

Be careful, those evolutionary scientists have a long standing reputation of falsifying or stretching evidence to make it fit their “theory”. One time they even found (fabricated artistically) a creature exactly half way between man and ape (the “Nebraska Man”), back when they were teaching that man evolved from apes. Later, it was discovered that the entire creature was artistically fabricated out of finding one tooth...... which was afterwards determined to be from an extinct pig. Notice – even until today, when they show their supposed evidence, it is always presented with artistic fabrication; the artist deserves all of the credit. (Another example of a deliberate hoax similar to the “Nebraska Man” was the “Piltdown Man”.)

Besides, even if it is true that many years ago there existed some other types of “apes” closer to humans than modern apes, it still does not mean that those things are ancestors of human beings. Those evolutionary scientists are making inappropriate and unjustifiable assumptions. (“assume” means to make an “ass” (donkey's rear end) of “you” and “me”) No specie has ever slowly and gradually changed into a different specie. No intermediate form of any creature between any two species has ever honestly been found, zip, never, zero, nada.

They have a perfect score: absolute zero.

Anything presented by that type of people should be examined with the greatest suspicion. Lies, lies, lies, lies. Those people have a reputation for 20

being very dishonest, in the past. Why do you think this article is called “The Lie of Evolution”? If the “theory” of evolution were true, there would be an enormous abundance of intermediate forms, at every slightest stage of changing into some-thing else, all over the earth (with many intermediate forms between every specie), not just a few rare cases that are easily disproved by any honest paleontologist. (“honest paleontologist”? Does such a being really exist? The only honest ones were the ones that disproved those fossils of false intermediate forms between man and ape. (the “missing links”) Since they changed their “theory” to the diversified group called: the one and only “common ancestor”, “honest paleon-tologists” have become extinct. Or, it could be said that since no real “common an-cestor” is ever selected, then no paleontologist is ever necessary to examine it.)

There should be many, many more intermediate fossils than fossils of regular species. The mere fact that their intermediate forms are always based on very few rare cases itself disproves their “theory”,..... and should raise suspicion of the honesty of the meager pitiful evidence they do find. The very nature of their “theory” of slow and gradual changing species demands that the quantity of inter-mediate forms must be many, many more than the quantity of regular forms. In fact, what is now considered “regular forms” would be nothing more than a tempo-rary short, short, short, short, brief, brief, brief, brief spot on a continuum of contin-ual change. The existence of “species” alone maintaining the same form for thou-sands of years completely disproves the “theory” of evolution.

Thousands of years ago human artists made images of animals that look exactly like all of those same animals today. Horses have always looked like hor-ses and nothing but horses for thousands of years. They couldn't even come up with a “Mr. Ed”, a talking horse.

More recent findings of “missing links” always have very scanty rare evidence and the evolutionary scientists are now always embarrassed to say which “theory” they're trying to prove; man evolving from ape or man and ape both evol-ving from a “common ancestor”, because all of their evidence of the big diversified group they call, the one and only “common ancestor”, always look like apes.

Despite the fact that they've been teaching the second “theory” instead of the first for decades, the general public still thinks of “man evolving from ape” whenever they hear the subject of “evolution”. Whether the evolutionists like it or not, the general public can't get the first “theory” out of their minds. Especially be-cause the fake evidence they present for their second theory looks just like the fake evidence they used to present for their first theory. (People don't trust a scien-tist who teaches one “theory” as being an undeniable fact and then 21

changes it to a different “theory”, and then teaches the next “theory” as being an undeniable fact. Also, their big diversified group which is supposedly the one and only “common ancestor” always look like apes.)

Not only that, but, most people don't even understand the purpose of using the name “Hominids” instead of “apes”, especially since all the Hominids look like apes. The people look at it, and can't figure out why they changed the name of those creatures from “apes” to “Hominids”. What, on earth, do they need this se-cond theory of the “common ancestor” for? Why do they have to call something (apes) by a different name (Hominids)? The average person doesn't seem to un-derstand that the reason they changed the theory was that they couldn't find any evidence that man evolved from apes. …....And, discovering a lot of species of extinct apes doesn’t indicate that they were ancestors of humans at all.

But, that doesn't matter. As long as they're a massive group, they can keep looking up and saying that the sky is green, and people will believe it’s green any-way. Those evolutionary scientists might even invent a third “theory” someday and teach that as being absolutely and undeniably true in their “universities”, which don't deserve to be called “universities”, because they tolerate this type of irrational and dishonest hokum, while rejecting the enormous bulk of facts that support creation (young earth) much more than evolution (old earth).

Rest assured, God gives special wisdom to people who reject the education and diplomas from those universities. Their diplomas belong in the trash along with all their rejected scientific evidence. Everyone who accepts their diplomas will never know God's wisdom. (Also see video on youtube called: The Most Success-ful People Explain Why a College Degree is USELESS) Why are the most suc-cessful people usually not college graduates?

The quantity of evidence is like comparing the size of a dishonest ant to the size of an honest elephant, a million to one difference. They have dishonestly des-cribed an ant hill as though it were a mountain. It is as though they have “tunnel vision”, like horses with blinders next to their eyes to keep them from seeing any-thing other than what is directly in front of them. The pitiful meager evidence that they usually present is always irrelevant and insignificant to any main point. It is immaterial and impertinent, which proves nothing.)

For example, they show that in every specie, offspring are always somehow different than their parents, from which they falsely assume to mean that those creatures will eventually change into completely different species, little by little. Or, they'll talk about things like “natural selection”, “mutation” or 22

“genetic drift”, all of which are assumed to produce positive variations, but without presenting any evidence. Or, they'll take two different types of any species and mix them together and claim they got a new specie that didn't exist before. Yet, they can't figure out that what they got was just another of the same specie, which is not any other specie other than the one they started with.

They're not able to understand that their assumptions are faulty. No specie has ever changed into a different specie ....... and “genetic drift” is falsely assumed. Genetic DNA is fixed, it doesn't “drift”.

Another example is found in the 2014 Christian film “God’s Not Dead”, when a student in a philosophy class at a secular university was required to prove before the class the existence of God. He chose to use the argument of creation vs evo-lution as a demonstration for the necessity of the existence of God. The atheist professor responded in class by quoting the noted atheist professor Stephen Haw-king, “the world's most famous scientist”, professor of physics at Cambridge, who is “in favor of a self-designing universe” (the Big Bang Theory). Who said, "Be-cause there's a law such as gravity,….. there is something instead of nothing.….. is why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to set the universe in motion." Interestingly, this brings up one of the few aspects in which both creation and evolution are in agreement, that something came out of nothing. The fact is that, “gravity” is an invisible force that scientists can only study its effects. They can not see it or know where it comes from or how it exists. Where-as, the Bible explains it: 2Pet 3:5 “…... that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth…...” It is by the “word of God” that the invisible force called “gravity” exists, and also by which things hold together and don’t disintegrate, or by which objects don’t go floating off the planet into outer space,…… and by which everything was created.

Go ahead, take a look at their “evidence” on any web page about evolution. Notice – don't waste time looking at the teaching of the “theory” itself,..... look for the evidence. They have a bad habit of teaching their “theory” as a fact without showing any evidence at all. They are also very good at beating around the bush, and running in circles about things that don't matter.

They're experts at making mountains out of ant hills. The truth is, that it may be a very long job and a very time consuming job trying to find any important evidence at all. (Other than irre-levant insignificant ant hills, which they talk about as though they were mountains.)

They know they don't need any evidence. The people who follow their 23

“theory” don't care about evidence. The pertinent facts are, for example, how no specie has ever slowly and gradually changed into a different specie. The DNA code itself won't permit it. No fossil of any intermediate form between any two species has ever been found, never, zip, zero, nada. All of the links between all of the species are all missing. 00.00% exist. They have a perfect score: absolute zero. Or, how the earth is young, not old. These are the important things. They are very good at dodging the important stuff, and focusing on the trivial or the irrelevant.

And what about the “missing links” (many stage-by-stage intermediate forms) of the specie before their supposed ancestor of the human race? Their “common ancestor”…... What ancesor? They refuse to even select one. And the “missing links” (many stage-by-stage intermediate forms) of the supposed specie before that? (Before what? They haven’t even selected it yet.) And the “missing links” (many stage-by-stage intermediate forms) of the supposed specie before that? Where are their intermediate forms? There should be many, many inter-mediate forms at every slightest alteration of change from one specie into another. Each specie, including species not related to the supposed linage of human beings, needs evidence of slow and gradual change (many stage-by-stage inter-mediate forms) of each animal at every slightest stage of progress...... from a sin-gle cell organism all the way up to the modern species. The evidence of those stage-by-stage “links” between each specie does not exist. Their links are ALL “missing”, 00.00% exist. They have a perfect score: absolute zero.

They can't even find one half-way intermediate link, much less each stage-by-stage continuum of gradual changes. There is no such thing as any “interme-diate form” of any creature at all, never, none, zip, zero, nada. No specie has ever slowly and gradually changed into a different specie. In some of their museums they have figures of creatures gradually changing into something else, but that is done exclusively with art work. The artist deserves all the credit. They are in the lie business, not the truth business,.... and they like it that way. Or, maybe they can’t tell the difference between the truth and a lie. Well, the psychologists in those “universities” can’t fix this type of mental illness, so maybe the psychologists are just as bad. (See article listed below on: Self-Love and Self-Esteem) Without a complete set of “links” (many intermediate forms at every slightest stage of change) between each specie throughout the entire “evolution” of man, their ancestor, inappropriately named “ Hominids”, (which should be called “apes”) is a useless error and a dead end.

Even if they did use the name “apes” (going back to the first theory), it would still be necessary for them to select one from the many different types of 24

apes as the “ancestor” of humans. (Don’t forget, “links” between ape and man don’t exist.) It is extremely unrealistic to imagine that all of the exceedingly different types of “apes” are somehow ALL the one and only “ancestor” of humans. They refuse to pick one so that it could never be disproved, like ALL the other missing links have been disproved. (by their own people) By never selecting one, it eliminates the possibility that it could ever be disproved.

Is it really true that there is not even one evolutionary scientist who will stand up and confess that this “common ancestor” (the assortment of extremely different “ Hominids”, rather, extinct “apes”) is/are false? They have already confessed that man did not evolve from apes, so now they also need to confess that man did not evolve from a variety of very different, inappropriately named “ Hominids ”, rather, extinct “apes”: the big diversified group that is called the one and only “common ancestor”. (Why is the “common ancestor” singular and also plural at the same time?) (How could all those extremely different looking “ Hominids”, rather, extinct “apes”, all be ancestors of humans, all at the same time? Why don't they select one? Answer: First, they don't have to. People who hold to the “theory” of evolution don't care about any real evidence. Second, if they selected any specific one, it would leave them open to be disproved, like all the other “missing links”. By never selecting one, it can never be disproved.) Is there really not even one honest competent person among all those evolutionists who will stand up and confess?

No specie has ever slowly and gradually changed into a different specie.

None of those “ Hominids”, rather, extinct “apes”, was ever the ancestor of human beings and they cannot prove otherwise. They will even make false claims, like: those “Hominids” walked in an upright position like humans, not like regular apes that walk bent over with their hands on the ground. But, they won't confess that a lot of animals are capable of standing upright. Modern apes, bears or even dogs can be taught to stand up on their rear legs and walk standing upright. The Meerkat, a small carnivore belonging to the mongoose family, found in southern Africa, is famous for standing in a tall upright position.

In the 2006 film “Night at the Museum”, when the little Capuchin monkey, named Dexter, stole the keys and went running off with them, he ran in an upright position just like a human being would do.

Next, there is the question of “creation of life” experiments. If indeed it is true that life evolved all by itself, then it would be possible for a scientist to “create” (not evolve) living cells in a laboratory from non-living substances.

However, this has never been done. In fact, it has been proven that at every stage of the deve-lopment (creation, not evolution) of a living cell, oxygen 25

cannot be present. Con-tact with oxygen would ruin the material substance before it could get to the next stage of development (creation). But, at the very instant that a living cell is formed (created), oxygen must be present or else the living cell would die immediately. The change must be instantaneous: the absence of oxygen immediately followed by the presence of oxygen, within seconds. (This is possible only in a laboratory with a creator, not out in the real world) (…. and where could you find a place in the real world with no oxygen?

There isn't any. Both air and water are full of oxygen.) (All of this is just hypothesis. No living cell has ever been created from non-living materials.)

Also, don't forget about the extreme complexity of the DNA code that exists in every living cell for every creature. It would be more believable that a tornado passing through a junk yard could assemble a perfectly functional car out of old scattered parts than that a living cell formed its own DNA code all by itself, by chance. It is not realistic that living organisms “evolved” all by themselves, by chance. Random chances don't form order, they form disorder.

Tornadoes passing through junk yards leave big messes, not functioning cars.

In addition, all of the laboratory attempts to create life always involve the use of very elaborate complex laboratory equipment and procedures which could never have existed out in the real world without a creator. (Like the unrealistic con-dition that some of the development stages require a temperature much, much higher than boiling point, then the tiny product they get must be removed immedi-ately from the heat, or else the high temperature will destroy it; a condition that could only exist in a laboratory.) (Another unrealistic condition is that all of the sub-stances they use in their experiments are always in their pure state, a condition that could never exist out in the real world. They already know before they start that impure substances would contaminate the experiment.)

It is impossible for life to be formed (created, even by a scientific human creator) from non-living substances. How much less could life have “evolved” all by itself, by chance...... In fact, if the “theory” of evolution were true there would be living cells spontaneously forming out of non-living substances all over the place, every day. But that never happens in real life. All living things are always born from other living things; parents always produce children. Living things never “evolve” from non-living materials.

But, even if those scientists did create life, in a laboratory, it would only show that a creator is necessary. If they want to prove the “theory” of evolution, they need to show life forming all by itself out in the real world, not in a laboratory. They themselves would not dare to waste time attempting to look for such a ridiculous thing. They know it would be a waste of time because they know perfectly well that the “theory” of evolution is not true. They also know that 26

looking for such a thing and never finding it, would be more proof against them that they would have to add to the already abundance of evidence that they've already thrown out in the trash, into their already overflowing big dumpsters.

They know they're lying, every time they falsely teach this “theory” as a fact. They're in the lie business, not the truth business,...... and they like it that way. Only God can create life from non-living materials. God just spoke the word, and life was formed by His words alone. Gen 1:24 “And God said, let there be …....... and it was so.” God created everything by His words alone.

2Pe 3:5,7 “......that by the word of God the heavens were of old,.....”7 “But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, …...”

And,...... what is this mysterious force that makes everything stick together, called gravity? Not only does it keep every loose object from floating off the Earth into outer space, but it makes the molecules in every object hold together so that it doesn't fall apart and disintegrate, flying apart in every direction. Gravity is the main factor that makes all matter exist. So, how does this force work? God makes it work by ordering it so by His word! 2Pet 3:5 “…... that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth…...”

Scientists can evaluate the na-tural laws about what gravity does, but they can't explain how it got there, how it exists or what makes it do what it does.

On the History channel documentary “Ancient Aliens”, their scientists (who otherwise would have been evolutionists) propose that the first life on earth was brought here by extraterrestrials at the beginning. (See my article listed below on: Angels are Aliens, Aliens are Angels) They only propose this theory because of the obvious absurdity of life evolving from non-living materials, all by itself. (If they were evolutionary scientists they would never confess this.)

However, despite the fact that they are right about the absurdity of life evolving from non-living materials, they seem to forget that even if the first life started on some other planet as op-posed to Earth, it still had to have had some sort of starting point. They them-selves confess that it could never have evolved all by itself,....... But, they refuse to admit that the only solution that works is that it could only have been created by an eternal being.

The second involvement of extraterrestrials they propose is the development of humans themselves, later on, from lower species by means of advanced genetic engineering. They recognize the extreme complexity of humans as com-pared to any of the lower species and propose that it could never have happened all by itself by means of evolution, by chance. Random chances don't form order, they form disorder. It is interesting how they recognize the absurdity of the “theo-ry” of evolution,..... and that some other 27

explanation must be necessary, involving some sort of intelligent being(s).

Surprisingly, they do not want to reject the “theo-ry” of evolution altogether.

They combine their “alien” theories along with evolu-tion,...... whichever way happens to be convenient for them.

It is too bad that, like the evolutionists, their “theories” also reject the involve-ment of God, the creator. They just substitute the involvement of a creator God with the involvement of creators that are extraterrestrials. They recognize that it is obvious that some type of intelligent being(s), apart from evolution, must have been involved to produce human existence. But, they don't want to face the ob-vious question: How did the extraterrestrials come into existence? Those extra-terrestrial theorists have rejected both evolution and creation, so how could the extraterrestrials have come into existence without the possibility of evolving or being created? Answer: God is eternal. God was never born, He had no starting point. The extraterrestrials were created by God, and should be called “angels” or “demons”, as they are called in the Bible. (See my article listed below on: Angels are Aliens, Aliens are Angels) Yet another important question would be the change of species through breeding. If the “theory” of evolution were true, then it would be possible to breed animals until they would eventually change into different species. For example, someone could breed dogs or horses until eventually they would get cats, ele-phants or lions. (Or at least a dog or horse with human intelligence or speech, like “Mr. Ed”, the talking horse.) People have been breeding dogs and horses for thou-sands of years, and yet they have gotten nothing but dogs and horses, that have always been speechless. This completely kills the “theory” of evolution absolutely dead.

Parrots and a few other birds can talk, yet it is impossible to breed them so that they can understand what they say. The only thing Parrots can do is repeat words out of habit, with no real understanding. Even Koko the gorilla who learned thousands of sign language vocabulary words doesn't surpass the intelligence level of a dog taught to do tricks or a parrot that speaks without any real under-standing, merely repeating sounds. (See Koko on www.youtube.com) (And how about the little dog in the 1994 film “the Mask” who unlocked the car door from inside and opened it by pulling the door handle? Would Koko be any smarter if she could do that? Teaching an animal to do tricks does not constitute a conversation or real intellect. Teaching Koko to do sign language vocabulary words does not surpass teaching a dog to sit up and beg when he wants food.)

28

How is it possible that the foot of a dog could be half way between a dog's paw and a horse's hoof? What would it look like? Such a thing couldn't exist...... and there is no evidence that it ever did exist. Species cannot slowly and gradu-ally change into other species. All supposed intermediate forms would be imprac-tical and dis-functional. An animal's foot that was half-way between a dog's paw and a horse's hoof would be dis-functional. Natural selection would not make such an impractical, dis-functional and useless animal improve; it would be useless and inferior, not an improvement. And, in reality, such creatures have never existed. All the types of species throughout history have always been 100% functional.

If the “theory” of evolution were true, the presence of “species” would not even exist. Every creature would be in a continual state of change and the majority of creatures would be in some intermediate stage between what is now considered “species”. Most of their body parts would be in some sort of nonfunctional weird impossible formations that have never been seen in any fossil, ever. No fossil of any creature between species has ever been found with disfunctional intermedi-ate-stage body parts.

The theory of “natural selection” cannot possibly apply to dis-functional inter-mediate-stage body parts. Dis-functional intermediate-stage body parts are not an asset, they are a hindrance, which would not be an improvement.

This is the main reason why the DNA code has limits to how much a creature can change, from one generation to the next. The DNA code will not permit intermediate-stage dis-func-tional body parts. God created all species with normal body parts, which are at maximum functionality. Deformed freaks of nature are never improvements on a specie.

The only reason why this “theory” of intermediate-stage body parts has been widely accepted between humans and Hominids , rather, extinct “apes”, is that most of the body parts are very similar and a transitional form between most of those body parts would still be functional during the intermediate-stage.

However, despite the fact that most of the outward body parts seem very similar, some of the inward body parts, like the speech center and brain, are very much different and a transitional form would not be functional. The extremely different speech center was why they had to teach Koko the gorilla sign language rather than speaking.

The whole concept of dis-functional intermediate-stage body parts must be completely ignored between most species or else the “theory” of evolution cannot be considered rational, even by atheists. They must ignore the obvious imprac-ticality of dis-functional intermediate-stage body parts. And they must ignore the fact that they have never found even one fossil of any creature with intermediate-stage body parts. There is no such thing!!

29

It must also be remembered that different species cannot inter-breed.

There are many internal inconsistencies in type that make it impossible for different species to inter-breed and produce offspring........ And if they can't inter-breed, how could they possibly slowly change into a different specie that they couldn't even mate with? It is not possible that any specie could slowly and gradually change into a specie that they couldn't even mate with. The internal inconsis-tencies in type that prohibit them from inter-mating could not possibly be at a half-way point,..... and then suddenly switch to a different type,….. a male and female both at the exact same time. How absurd can you get? (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.)

Variations within the same specie can inter-mate, like different types of dogs, but not with a different specie. A dog cannot mate with a cat. If the “theory” of evolution were true, this condition would not exist. In addition, there would pro-bably be a lot of species that could even reproduce without mating at all.

Concerning dogs, there are many different kinds, but as with every specie, there is a “limit” to how much they can change. This “limit” is the very essence of what makes a “specie” to be a “specie”. A dog will always be a dog. God not only created all the animals to be in groups of “species”, but He also created “limits” for each specie to which they must always stay within. You can breed big dogs and little dogs, but you will never breed a dog the size of an elephant, nor the size of an ant. Those sizes are outside of the “limits” for dogs. The existence of these “limits” completely disproves the “theory” of evolution.

Species never change into other species.

The only possible exception to these “limits” would be some sort of “freak” of nature, which is scientifically called a “mutation”. A “mutation” is not a normal var-iation within the “limits” of the specie, like breeding a cuter looking dog.

Those “mutations” are always something bad, abnormal and inferior, never something better. (Like the “Elephant Man”. See the real “Elephant Man” on Wikipedia.) A “mutation” is never, never, never an improvement on the specie, and they usu-ally die young, as did the Elephant Man. A “mutation” is caused by damage somehow being done to the DNA code, usually from radiation or drugs during pregnancy, kind of like a car getting into an accident. Is it possible to wreck a car in any way and get an improvement?

Is it possible to smash-up a cheap old VW and end up with a new expensive Bugatti, worth $3.5 million? (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.)

There is no such thing as a car accident causing an improvement on the car.

(Be careful, they say they can get beneficial mutations. But, that is because they have difficulty dis-tinguishing between a natural variation within the “limits” of a 30

specie and a “muta-tion”. Mistaking a variation within the “limits” for a mutation is why they claim to get occasional “beneficial” mutations, without which evolution would be impossible.)

Furthermore, a car accident would not change the original car design from the factory. (That is, the original DNA code of any specie. Mutated formations never have offspring in accordance to any new mutation. If they ever have offspring, any healthy offspring always has the original DNA, including only natural variations within the “limits” of the specie, never the mutated changes.) In the case of the Elephant Man, his reproductive organ was in normal condition. So, if he had any children, they would not look like little elephant children, but rather, they would look like normal children. (His mother was not an elephant woman, she was a normal looking human being. In fact, they say she was beautiful.)

Another example of damage to the DNA code (mutation) would be a corrup-tion error in a computer digital recording. Normally, when a digital recording is made, the copy is identical to the original, just like how when living cells form other cells (mitosis), the DNA code in the new cell is an identical copy of the original. But, if a computer is malfunctioning or if the hard disc has a defect, it is possible that the copy could be corrupted. If someone records some music and wants to copy it, is it possible that a corrupted copy of their music comes out as an improve-ment? Could a corrupted copy ever produce better music than the original? How absurd! Corrupted audio copies always sound bad.

Likewise, any damage to the DNA code will never, never, never produce a better creature. The idea that “genetic drift” could alter a specie so that it would eventually change into a different superior specie is like saying that defects in audio recordings will eventually change a piece of music into completely different superior piece of music. A person who wants to write new music could just look for a malfunctioning computer that records improperly, rerecord a bunch of music over and over again until finally they get superior music. (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.) Digital recordings are intended to be identical, just like DNA duplication in any creature from one generation (cell) to another. Any pos-sible alteration in the copy (mutation) cannot possibly be anything but bad.

Nobody has ever bred an animal and got an improvement on the specie outside the natural “limits” of that same specie. (Obviously, this doesn't include changes within the “limits” of the specie, like breeding a more attractive dog, which is still a dog and not anything but a dog. Example: long hair Chihuahuas are much more adorable and cuter than regular short hair Chihuahuas,..... but they're still dogs. Internet search: long hair Chihuahua images) 31

The “theory” of evolution must reject the existence of “limits” to how much species can change. They call this absence of “limits” “genetic drift”, which is ho-kum. Those evolutionary scientists always “assume” that since all species have children that are different than their parents, there is no “limit” to how much they can change. If this were true then no “specie” would even exist. All creatures would be continually in some intermediate stage of changing into something else, getting better and better as the years go by, with no creator or breeder involved. This would also mean that there should be nothing to inhibit different species from inter-mating or self-producing without mating at all.

Before modern technology, horses were very important work animals, and the quality of their breeding was of utmost importance for thousands of years.

Everyone knows that if you want a better animal, you won't get it without a breeder. Everyone knows it. (Which means “natural selection” is nonsense.)

Species never, never, never get better all by themselves without a breeder.

(And inferior variations of species normally have just as many offspring as supposedly superior variations. A cheap farm horse has just as many offspring as an expensive thor-oughbred race horse.) How absurd does the “theory” of evolution have to be pre-sented before people will reject it? (Remember, this is a religious matter, not a scientific matter. The main purpose of the “theory” of evolution is to deny the exis-tence of God, which those people will hold to no matter how much the scientific evidence is against them.)

And what about the old “theory” of “the survival of the fittest” or “natural selection”, as some people call it? Do race horse owners get their superior race horses using “the survival of the fittest” or do they use a breeder? (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.) How absurd does the “theory” of evolution have to be presented before university professors will stop teaching it as though it were an undeniable fact? All the universities that accept this type of irrational absurd hokum do not deserve to be called universities; they have disqualified themselves.

What about the evolution of a body part like the eye? Supposedly, evolution is a process that happens very slowly and gradually over many years.

They say that the eye “evolved” slowly and gradually over many years, improving all by itself little by little as time went by, as a result of “the survival of the fittest”, with no breeder. But if that were true, then for a long time some poor creatures had a part-way developed eye that was nothing more than a useless and troublesome lump on their faces, which would not make them the supposed “fittest”. (And how did it get on their faces anyway? And why a pair in front?

32

Why not one in the front and the other in the back? …... Or, as some species have, one eye on each side of their heads, which gives them a panoramic view; practically the same as having an eye in front and an eye in back.) How could “the survival of the fittest” or “natural se-lection” make it improve? It couldn't.

Everything that improves does so by some sort of intelligent design, not by random changes. Random chances produce a mess, like a tornado going through a junk yard, not improvement.

The existence of useless and troublesome lumps on the face would not put that creature into the category of the “fittest” and somehow make it have more offspring,..... and somehow the creatures without those useless lumps have fewer offspring. Those useless and troublesome lumps would be an unprofitable dis-functional hindrance, not an asset. Creatures either have fully functioning eyes or they do not, because God created them that way. No specie has ever started a part-way developed eye that improved little by little, all by itself, by chance, neither in the past nor in the present. Random chances don't form improvement, they form disorder. Can a monkey typing random keys produce a best selling novel? Never in a million years. Never in a billion years.

Never in a trillion years. It cannot happen.

What's more, the human race itself does not go along with the theory of “the survival of the fittest”. The most advanced people (fittest) are having the fewest children and the least advanced people are having the most children.

Professional educated women (fittest) are usually too much caught up in the advancement of their careers (superiority) to be bothered with what they consider to be the inferior lowly waste of time of raising and training children at home. The modern “feminist” movement has converted them into men; being women is considered inferior, and so they have to be superior (the fittest). But, even if they have children, they usual-ly end up paying someone else to take care of them and raise them; they normally spend very little time raising them.

Most professional women would consider it an insult if someone (a man) said they would be better off raising and training children at home.

Despite their higher education, (from “universities” that don't deserve to be called “universities”) those women aren’t capable of understanding that the great-est contribution they could give to humanity is by doing a quality job of raising and training children at home. (This comment is not intended to insult women. It is in-tended to take note that women need loving husbands to guide them and protect them from dangerous errors.) It is the lack of quality mothering that is the main cause of the unstable troubled young generation which we have today.

Not only that but, the evolutionists who support the theory of “the survival 33

of the fittest” would not dare to stand up against the modern “feminist” movement that teaches the “fittest” educated women to act like men and not do the lowly task of raising and training children at home. It doesn't matter that modern “feminism” contradicts their “theory” of “natural selection”, they will stick to both and continue to contradict themselves anyway.

(Both “feminism” and “evolution” originate from the same atheist/communist source. Atheist communism is primarily a social and educational movement, not a political movement. The extremely powerful effect of these two teachings on our modern society demonstrates the overwhelming dominance of the communist/atheist/anti-Christian influence which has already conquered the entire western modern society. All of the supposedly superior “progress” of modern society is really a satanic/deceptive take-over of society by people with very bad intentions. It should be compared to the pre-WW2 Nazi take-over of Germany.

Or, the more recent communist take-over and disaster in Venezuela. Better still, how about Bush’s 9-11? (That's right, Bush's 9-11. He did it. See documentaries: “Loose Change” and “Fahrenheit 9-11”.) Also, see article listed below on: The Consequences of “Women's Liberation” and “The New World Order was Prophesied in the Bible”.)

The world is being over-populated by the least “fit” people of all..... And the theory of “the survival of the fittest” is absurd hokum. In every specie, the least “fit” creatures do survive, and continue to have just as many or more offspring as any other variation of their own specie. Any particular specie or variation of a specie that has more offspring is always due to their reproductive organs being somehow more active, not due to any other superiority. In the case of humans, the “fittest” women are having the fewest children because modern society (feminism) teaches them that if they don’t act like men and do what men do, then they are inferior. Has there ever existed any specie out in nature that had both genders acting like the male? How could such a specie survive? It couldn’t. It has never happened.

The “theory” of the “survival of the fittest” is kind of like the story of two men in a forest who came across a bear. One of the men knelt down to pray.

The other man bent over and tightened his boot laces getting ready to run. So, the first man said to him, “Are you crazy, you can't out-run a bear.” To which he replied, “I don't have to out-run the bear, all I have to do is out-run you.” (Survival of the fittest) To which he replied, “Most bears normally only chase creatures that run away from them. So, if you run and I don't, the bear will probably ignore me and chase only you. However, if we both back away slowly, the bear will probably not bother either of us, thank God.” (Both survived) (Bears are also known to walk away if you make unpleasant sharp clanging noises, like 34

banging two rocks together, or two pieces of metal together; it irritates their ears.) The theory of “survival of the fittest” must assume that the “unfittest” won't survive and won't have children...... but in real life, the “unfittest” do survive, and continue having just as many or more children than anyone else.

The human over-population is also contaminating the world with an abundance of pollution, using the technology created by the supposed “fittest” most advanced people. (Contaminating our own world is reverse evolution.) The human race has had the technology, for a long time now, capable of discontinuing the polluting use of gasoline and replacing it with much cleaner forms of energy, (which would really help reduce global warming, and also improve normal respiration for all air-breathing creatures). (Internet search: replacement energy for gasoline) Electric cars are a poor choice, due to the inconvenient characteristic of the required time delay for recharging the batteries. Also, the distance limitations would make them impossible to use for any long distance trips. And due to the severe limit to weight load capacity, those cars would go very slow if carrying over-weight people, or extra cargo. Just one ordinary American chubster would make it run like a turtle. (“chubster”, the kind that can barely fit through the doorway of his own house. Sometimes they can't. And sometimes they have to ride around in the back of a regular van or pick-up.) Not only that, but an American chubster might break the springs on one of those light-weight electric cars. America has the fattest people in the world. How about,……. “the survival of the fattest”.

Those light-weight electric vehicles aren't made for heavy loads. Nevertheless, the negative characteristic of time delay for recharging could be overcome by having interchangeable batteries available fully recharged all over the place like how gas stations are available now. But, the supposed “fittest” humans are the ones who insist on forcing everyone to use gasoline anyway.

(Like the Bush fami-ly.) Then they lie to everyone saying that global warming will never cause any seri-ous problems. (See documentaries called: “An Inconvenient Truth”, “Chasing Coral”, “Chasing Ice” and “Racing Extinction”) In the documentary “Racing Extinction”, where the main subject is the mas-sive extinction of many species of animals due to either pollution or massive killing and commercializing of certain species, the subject of evolution is constantly men-tioned as merely assumed without any evidence presented whatsoever. The supposed “old age” of the earth is mentioned over and over again because it is automatically assumed to be true. Just like how in the business world, it is well known that constant, constant, constant commercials influence people to buy their products, so it is that many people without even 35

realizing what they are doing have been conditioned to talk about the earth as being super old,…... again, and again, and again, with no evidence whatsoever.

Why is the old age of the earth so impor-tant? It isn’t, except for one thing; they don’t want to think about the earth as be-ing created by God. The main purpose of evolution is to promote atheism. It is an anti-religious attack that most people don’t even think about as being what it really is.

In the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”, it is mentioned that the Antarctic ice is 650,000 years old. (at 21 minutes into the film) Well, what ever happened to their billions of years? Are they really saying that 650,000 years ago there was no ice on the Antarctic? Why? They don’t say. The most probable reason is that their 650,000 years is twisted evidence that begins with the assump-tion that the earth absolutely has to be very old. But, somehow they couldn’t quite twist it far enough to get the number of years that they really wanted. It ought to be investigated exactly how they came up with their 650,000 years. Rest assured it isn’t honest. In some schools this is called “fudging” the evidence. Kind of like when some people make home-made fudge; they feel free to change around the recipe, however they want, as they go along. Every time they make it, it comes out a little different.

On the subject of the implementation of new forms of energy, there seems to be something very fishy about what's going on. (Even in the documentary “An In-convenient Truth”, this subject is avoided. Al Gore spends all of his time pointing out the negative effects of global warming without offering any real solutions. Con-taminating emissions need to be completely stopped, not reduced. Catalytic con-verters reduced the automobile emissions for a while, but the problem still con-tinues. The use of gasoline needs to be replaced, not reduced.)

Normally, when any new type of business is started, investors know that it is of utmost importance to be the first. When Bill Gates started Microsoft, he started selling a product before he even had a product. He had nothing! But he knew very well, the importance of being the first to get his foot in the door. (He didn't get his foot in the door first on smart-phones, so Microsoft is way down in sales on smart-phones. Linux-Android beat Microsoft to the punch on smartphones. If Gates had not got his foot in the door first on regular OS's, Linux would have beat-en him on that one, too.) But, somehow the big, super rich petroleum producers are dragging their (supposedly “fittest”) feet.

Why do they refuse to invest their money in the new technology and get something better started? Maybe it's because they're too much like the Bush family (who are leading investors in petroleum). They enjoy causing big fat disas36

ters like Bush's 9-11, knowing that they're the ones who did it. (See documentaries called: “Loose Change” and “Fahrenheit 9-11”) Disaster is coming, as a result of global warming (using gasoline), and those petroleum people can sit back and laugh because nobody is lifting a finger to stop them. Decades ago was the time when new cleaner energy sources should have replaced the use of gasoline, but somehow this mysterious fishiness is causing in-vestors to avoid normal business practices and not invest in the lucrative and en-vironmentally safer venture of replacing the use of gasoline. Why the fishiness? We should not still be using gasoline. This isn't normal. Nor does it fit into the theory of Evolution. Modern pollution is reverse evolution.

Another one is the “big bang theory”, which is nothing more than a creation without a creator. This is an outright confession that the evidence shows the exis-tence of a creation, but they still deny that it was done by a creator,..... they say a big explosion did it,…….. kind of like a tornado passing through a junk yard.

The whole universe is gradually running down and slowly corrupting itself (reverse evolution), like stars becoming black holes. Therefore, it must have had a starting point in the past. This means that the universe could not have existed eternally in the past. Well,….. what ever happened to the evolutionary concept of everything getting better and better all by itself? (SSShhhh…..don’t talk about that.)

Is there anything more ridiculous than the idea of a large explosion causing organization and beauty? Is there anyone who would organize their house by throwing a grenade into it? (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.)

The only evidence that they have that a large explosion happened is the ob-vious conclusion that there must have been a starting point. Apart from the unmis-takable necessity of a starting point there is no other evidence of a giant explosion ever happening; it is an assumed “theory” with no evidence. They “assumed” there was a large explosion simply because they reject the existence of the crea-tor, God,..... and there is obviously no other explanation for that starting point apart from their assumed “big bang”. The existence of a starting point does not rule out that it was caused by a creator. Anyhow, large explosions don't cause order, they cause disorder, just like a tornado passing through a junk yard.

In addition, a large explosion would cause all of the matter involved to move away from the origin of that explosion at high speed with nothing to stop 37

that move-ment. In space there is no air to slow things down. (Which is why the earth can rotate around the sun for thousands of years at exactly the same speed with no-thing to slow it down. If it did slow down, even a little, the sun's gravity would pull it in. The earth would have fallen into the sun many years ago.)

If there was a big bang, everything would continually be moving away from the origin of the explosion in different directions, at high speed. This would cause a continual change in the position of all the stars, as seen from the earth.

By now, all the stars would have gotten so far away that they would no longer be visible from the earth. (Especially if the explosion happened billions of years ago, as they say it did.) (Yet, more evidence that the old age theory is a bunch of hokum. God created everything aproximately 6,000 years ago, not billions of years ago.)

However, all the stars in the universe have been in the same position for a long time now. Thousands of years ago people saw the constellations in the same formations that they are seen today. For example: the pyramids in Egypt and Mexico (in Teotihuacan) were all positioned according to the constellation Orion, which is seen today exactly the same as when those pyramids were built.

(In Teo-tihuacan there are also other structures that mark exactly the position/distance of all the planets in our own solar system.)

The first question is: how did the people in those days get such perfect infor-mation as to the exact positioning of the stars and movement/distances of the pla-nets? It's one thing that primitive man could recognize planets moving across the sky at night, it's quite different that they knew the exact distances of those planets. And then the second question is: how is it that those facts have not changed in such a long time? None of the stars have changed their position.

The Hopi Indians in Arizona, USA, many years ago built villages, with perfect measurements/distances, in accordance to the constellation Orion. (Which has not changed since then.) (Orion, Orion, Orion, Orion, Orion,..... why Orion? …….. That's where the extraterrestrial space visitors came from, who taught them to build the pyramids. And, who taught them astronomy more advanced than our modern technology is capable of.) (See my article listed below on: Angels are Aliens, Aliens are Angels) Our solar system is not moving through the universe at high speed, nor is the universe expanding..... And obviously, there was no “big bang”.

A university science professor teaching evolution as being “fact” instead of 38

“theory” is kind of like an American history professor teaching his students that Richard Nixon (tricky Dickey) was the first president of the United States; he can't do it without lying. Sooner or later every evolutionary scientist is faced with the fact that the “theory” of evolution is a lie,....... and they have to make a conscious choice to accept and support that lie anyway. (They know perfectly well why they throw so much rejected evidence into the trash. And, they know very well why they have to avoid selecting any specific intermediate form as the official ancestor of the human race.) Of course, it is possible that they hate God so much that they really do believe their own lies, which is a type of mental illness.

After all, if they deny the existence of God, then where did we come from?

They must have some kind of explanation that excludes God. Therefore, they came up with their “theory” of evolution, which sounds like it was invented by someone mentally unstable who dishonestly ignores and rejects the majority of the evidence which does not support their “theory”.

(There are web pages about how science supports creation much more than evolution. Examples: The Institute for Creation Research at: www.icr.org, The Creation Research Society at: www.creationresearch.org/, Ken Ham at: https://creation.com/ken-ham) (these pages also have lists of recommended books/stuff) (Also, see 2017 documentaries called: “Is Genesis History?” And: “Genesis Paradise Lost”) If anyone finds legitimate fault with anything presented in this article, (please, inform me) just remember, nobody throws away an apple because they don't like the core. People eat the apple and they throw away only the core, not the entire apple. As in the case of strawberries, the seeds are so small that people just eat the seeds along with the fruit. The majority of what is presented here is good and true, and should not be thrown away.

Recommended free Bible software: www.e-sword.net or www.theword.net Also free Bible audio recordings at: www.audiotreasure.com e-mails: PastorDavidMinistries@protonmail.com PastorDavidMinistries@tutanota.com 39

To donate, see document called “Donations” at: https://goo.gl/992nQY

OTHER ARTICLES at: https://www.scribd.com – look at bottom.

BEST: All on Google Drive – https://goo.gl/992nQY The Holy Scriptures http://docdro.id/aoytoK1 The Lie of Evolution http://docdro.id/8iHTZPE What About Deborah http://docdro.id/WZFTPRT Fatherhood http://docdro.id/rRBGPzi The Role Of Women Throughout History http://docdro.id/y5N76mt The Consequences of Using Incorrect Terminology http://docdro.id/iSclIFT Domestic Discipline http://docdro.id/1p3ZWPv The Lukewarm Church http://docdro.id/8yBgpqf Correct Divorce http://docdro.id/ACf0bzC Baptism 40

http://docdro.id/A5PGGa4 The Consequences of “Women's Liberation” http://docdro.id/mvyN0Kw The New World Order was Prophesied in the Bible http://docdro.id/8PCQUwN Self-Love and Self-Esteem http://docdro.id/kOEGq3w Angels are Aliens, Aliens are Angels http://docdro.id/88ttGOQ Wolves In Sheep's Clothing http://docdro.id/aFuq27A Slavery http://docdro.id/ULokluY The Virtues of the Spirit http://docdro.id/rAyRmTw The Babylonian and Egyptian Captivity http://docdro.id/iZXZXo0 The Suffering Of The Great Depression http://docdro.id/sUSrdWV Salvation http://docdro.id/FwIc0hR Marriage Misunderstandings Explained http://docdro.id/jPdKvu5

also at: 41

https://www.scribd.com https://www.scribd.com/document/356146389/The-Holy-Scriptures-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356144766/Correct-Divorce-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356144459/Angels-Are-Aliens-Aliens-AreAngels-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356146540/The-Lie-of-Evolution-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356146958/The-Suffering-of-the-GreatDepression-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356144570/Baptism-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356145036/Domestic-Discipline-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356145143/Fatherhood-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356145494/Marriage-MisunderstandingsExplained-Aug-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356145716/Salvation-Aug-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356145838/Self-Love-and-Self-Esteem-Aug2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356145975/Slavery-Aug-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356146031/The-Babylonian-and-EgyptianCaptivity-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356146140/The-Consequences-of-UsingIncorrect-Terminology-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356146266/The-Consequences-of-Women-sLiberation-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356143808/The-Lukewarm-Church-August2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356146746/The-New-World-Order-WasProphesied-in-the-Bible-August-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356146846/the-role-of-women-throughouthistory-august-2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356147021/The-Virtues-of-the-Spirit-August2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356147126/What-About-Deborah-August2017 https://www.scribd.com/document/356147203/Wolves-in-Sheep-s-ClothingAugust-2017

42