casio watch remote control

dr. hovind taught science for 15 years. thenhe got his ph.d. in education. he’s always had a love for teaching. but onething that he has discovered is that in many of the science textbooks across americatoday there are some fallacies; some false informationbeing presented. why is this information in the science textbooks?what are they trying to prove? hi, my name is eric. and in this seminar called,“lies in the textbooks” you are going to find out some of those liesthat are being presented, and what you can do about it. well, welcome to our seminar on “lies in thetextbooks.”

my name is kent hovind. i taught high schoolscience for 15 years. and now, since 1989, i’ve been doing seminarson creation, evolution, and dinosaurs. and our goal is to strengthen your faith ingod’s word. this is not my wife - this is just a pictureof her. we live in pensacola, florida. we’ve beenthere for 16 years. we have three children, all grown up. theyare all married and the dog died. i made it. as i have mentioned before we have four grandkidsso far. and grandkids are god’s reward for not killingyour own kids - when you thought about it. they all live right around me and they allwork in our ministry. that is a real blessing.

god has given us an amazing staff of peoplein (cse) creation science evangelism. our purpose is to get people saved. we likescience at our place. we have “dinosaur adventure land.” we have a science center, a theme park, amuseum, and all kinds of cool science stuff. some people try to say, “well, you christiansare against science.” no, i like science. but i am against evolutionbecause it is not part of science. evolution is a lie. there is no scientificevidence to back up evolution. we will get into that in just a minute. thebible says in the ten commandments: “thou shalt not bear false witness.” thatmeans: don’t lie.

proverbs 19:9 says, “a false witness shallnot be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape.” god hates liars. the bible says (psalm 62:4b)“...they delight in lies.” “these six things doth the lord hate: yea,seven are an abomination unto him: (proverbs 6:16-19) “...a lying tongue,” and a couple of verseslater, “a false witness that speaketh lies.” out of the seven things that god hates, twoof them are liars. he must really hate them. he lists them inthere twice. john 8:44, jesus said: “ye are of your fatherthe devil, and the lusts of your father ye

will do. he was a murderer from the beginning, andabode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of hisown: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” now then, i like science and i collect publicschool textbooks; i have hundreds of them. some texts from many other countries, andgoing clear back from the 1880s up to 2005. i am not against science. we have all kindsof really cool science displays at our museum. you can come down to “dinosaur adventure land”and see for yourself. i am however against lying to kids. now inthe first three seminar videos

we talked about how students are being liedto about. the big bang - it didn’t happen. they’re being lied to about the age of theearth. it is not billions of years old. they’re being lied to about the cave men.there has never been a “cave man.” unless you mean, osama bin laden. they’re being lied to about the dinosaurs.they did not live millions of years ago. and in this seminar we are going to coverabout 30 more lies in the textbooks. there are hundreds that we could go through.but we are going to try to hit the highlights. and this could go for days, just coveringlies in our textbooks. i am going to hit some of the big ones. wewill leave some of the little ones for another

time. i am not trying to get evolution out of thepublic schools. i think that any theory should be allowedto be taught - if you don’t have to lie to support your theory. i’m not trying to get creation into the schools. and i think that christians who work on eitherof those are wasting their time. and many people have wasted hundreds of thousandsof dollars trying to accomplish those two goals. that is not going to happen. i am howevertrying to get lies out of the textbooks.

i think we will find that if we take the liesout of the textbooks there will be nothing left to support evolution. but that is their problem. they shouldn’thave picked such a dumb theory to begin with. it’s not my fault. now, i am also not againstteachers. my mother was a godly woman. she led my dadto the lord on their first date. she retired from teaching in the public schools.she’s been in heaven now for about seven years. my brother led me to the lord. he just retiredlast year from teaching in the public schools for 34 years. there are many good, godly teachers in thesystem. there are many good, godly principles.

many good, godly school board members. i amnot against schools. i am not against school boards. i am not against teachers; i am not againsttextbooks. but i am against lies. let’s just keep it in perspective. is there anyone here who thinks that teachersor textbooks should be allowed to deliberately lie to students? and i mean deliberately. a person could belying and not know it. but if they are deliberately lying - thatshouldn’t be allowed, should it? wisconsin has a law that requires textbooksto be accurate. so does alabama.

“textbooks shall be adequate and current...” that means up to date; using the latest information. texas has a law that says, “instructionalmaterials shall be factual...” good for texas. florida has a law that requires the accuracyof instructional material. and the commissioner is responsible to removebooks that are not accurate. well, commissioner - do your job. watch thisvideo and then remove the books that are not accurate. california says that textbooks shall be “factuallyaccurate and reflect current and confirmed research.”

minnesota says that, “a teacher shall notdeliberately suppress or distort subject matter.” the problem is that none of those states enforcetheir own laws. i don’t know if tennessee has a law requiringtextbook accuracy. they ought to if they don’t have one. if youdon’t have one - pass one. this is a textbook from about 100 years ago. it says that god created the heavens and theearth in six days. prayer is a duty. but it is vain to pray withouta sincere heart. god governs the world with infinite wisdom.do you believe that this was a public school textbook?

well, here is one from today. “evolution isfact, not theory.” they say, “birds arose from non-birds, andhumans from non-humans. no person who pretends to any understandingof the natural world can deny these facts.” wow, something has changed! i was in chickasaw,oklahoma, a couple of weeks ago. it was supposed to be a debate, but none ofthe professors would debate me. so they scheduled an evolution seminar twodays after i was gone. they let me speak on creation, the studentgroup got me in there. here is a poster they put up right next tomy poster. the poster was inviting people to come tothe evolution seminar.

“interested in evolution? well come on down!” “evolution lectures with dr. mather and dr.reigh” it says, “hear both sides of the issue.” we invited them to debate. they could haveheard both sides together. the kids get nine months of evolution teaching- i come in for two hours - and they panic. and then they put on their poster “hear bothsides?” they’re not going to present both sides. they are going to present one side, only theevolution side. and that is what they already had for ninemonths. they don’t want to hear it.

i heard later that about twenty people turnedup, but fifteen were from the baptist student union. they wanted to hear what those teachers wouldsay. their own textbook that’s used in chickasaw,oklahoma has one-quarter of the book one entire unit is devoted to the evolutiontheory. there is nothing about creation. evolution is a dying religion that is survivingonly on tax dollars. it’s dead. this textbook has over 100 pages where evolutionis talked about. there is not one single mention of creation.so don’t tell me that they want to hear “both sides”.

they want to present one view only. it iscalled “indoctrination,” not education. this is a chart showing how the atheists feelthat the different states are doing with the teaching of evolution. they think that you folks in tennessee aredoing a lousy job of teaching evolution to your kids. go tennessee! but they think that the folksover here in north carolina are doing a good job. so north carolina folks - get on the ball!turn your state red by the next time they do this survey.

is there anyone here who thinks that teachersor textbooks should be allowed to use outdated or false information justto get students to believe their theory? would that be a good idea? no. okay. is there anyone here who thinks teachers thatdeliberately lie should be fired? is there anyone here who thinks textbookswith lies should be banned? or the lies torn out of the textbook? well- hang on. let’s go. it has always amazed me how two people canlook at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. you know, two people can look at the grandcanyon. one of them believes in evolution.

he looks at the canyon and says, “wow, lookat what the colorado river did.” “...for millions and millions of years.” the bible believing christian stands thereand looks at the same canyon. he looks at the canyon and says, “wow, lookat what the flood did in about 30 minutes.” now, just how was that canyon formed? thistextbook says, “over millions of years the colorado riverhas carved out the grand canyon from solid rock.” okay, hold on a second. it is a fact thatthe grand canyon exists. i have been there many times. i taught earthscience for 15 years.

i love studying the grand canyon. there aretwo interpretations of how it got there. the evolutionists will say that it formedslowly with a little bit of water and lots of time. like billions of years. but the creationistswill say that it formed quickly by lots of water and a little bit of time.like in the big flood in the days of noah. and the guys who believe in evolution arealways trying to erase the line. the line between their interpretation andto try to include it as if it is part of the fact. no, no, it is just your interpretation. thistextbook says,

“the colorado river has cut through layerupon layer of rock over millions of years...” well now, hold on a minute. this other textbooksays, “the colorado river cut through 2000 metersof rock exposing sediment layers like huge pagesin the book of life. scan the canyon wall from rim to floor andyou look back through hundreds of millions of years.” i don’t think so. i was in a debate one timeand this atheist said, “hovind, you’re so stupid. don’t you knowit took millions of years to carve the grand canyon?”

i said, “well sir, there’s a couple of thingsyou ought to learn about the grand canyon.” if you built a dam across the grand canyona huge lake would fill in behind it. it would cover several states. it would takea lot of material to build the dam. but if you could build a dam across that canyonyou’d have a really big lake. actually some of the water from wyoming drainsthrough the grand canyon. it has a huge drainage pattern. here is asatellite color picture of it. the grand canyon is like a big gash cuttingacross a mountain ridge. i have flown by and taken lots of picturesover the years. i asked the pilot one time, when i was goingwest, if we were going near the grand canyon.

he said, “yeah, about one hundred miles fromit.” could you get permission to divert? could we go past near enough, to get a littlecloser? he got permission and we flew right over thetop of the canyon! i was taking pictures like crazy. i love tostudy the grand canyon. actually, it is a bunch of useless real estate.what would you do with it if you had it? you can look at it and then go home. thatis about it. you can’t plow it. and you don’t want to letyour livestock play near the edge. i said to the professor, “there are a coupleof things to consider about this canyon.” these two red lines indicate what is calledthe “snow line.”

between those two red lines is a ridge thatis about 6900-8500 feet (2100-2600 m) above see level. to the far right - is where the river entersthe canyon. that is a 2800 feet (850 m) elevation. going through the canyon the river flows downhillfor 270 miles (435 km). it comes out the other side. if you look atthis from a side view - it looks like this. the river comes in at 2800 feet (850 m). theground rises up while the river goes down for 270 miles. so there are a few things to consider aboutthis canyon. i said to the professor, “did you know thatthe top of the grand canyon is higher than

the bottom?” he replied, “well, obviously.” i said, “sir,did you know that the river only runs through he said, “well, yeah.” i said, “sir, did youknow that the top of the canyon is higher than where the river enters by over 4000feet (1200 m)?” he looked kind of surprised. i continued,“sir, did you know that rivers don’t flow uphill?” and there is no delta. the colorado riverhas almost no river delta. where is all of that mud? that river did not make that canyon! the grandcanyon is a washed out spillway.

there used to be two big lakes: grand lakeand hopi lake. the lakes are long gone. but the ancient one-timebeaches are still there. you can still see the beach line. they gottoo full - and washed over the top and they washed out that canyon in a hurry. any farmer who has ever built a dam to holdwater for his cows will tell you. once the water goes over the top of the damit’s all over with. that is why they guard the levy during theflood seasons, don’t they? get out there with sand bags. you cannot affordfor it to even get started. this river flowed down, starting at the top,and it must have been a big lake.

even el paso, texas is called “el paso” becauseit is a big pass. i would bet that there used to be a big lakeonce backed up behind el paso. it later dried up and left the white sandsof new mexico behind. if you look at the grand canyon, it is obviousthat it is a washed out spillway. almost all rivers around the world come togetherat what is called acute angles, less than 90 degrees. the rivers will merge and keep going the samegeneral direction. if you look at the grand canyon, on the lowerleft are indeed merging at acute angles, less than 90 degrees.

but if you look at the upper right, the rivers are flowing backwards. why wouldthey do that? the rivers run backwards, then hit the mainchannel, and turn around the other way. it is called a barbed canyon. there aren’tmany places like this on the planet. this is evidence that a lake was once draining.the water was running in, then had to turn the grand canyon was not made by the flowingof the colorado river over millions of years. that is one of the lies you kids are goingto face in your textbooks. it is just not geophysically possible forthat to have happened that way. are there any farmers or veterinarians heretonight?

do you recognize this machine? yes, that isa calf puller. once in a while a cow has a hard time havingthat baby calf and so they get the calf puller out. they tie the cable around the calf’s legsand slowly pull the calf out of the cow. with enough pressure - the calf comes outwith no problem. well, one day this farmer was out pullinga calf. it was a breeched birth, the back feet first. that is not good, but it happens once in awhile. so the farmer had the calf puller out there,tightening it up. trying to pull the calf

out of the cow. well, this city fella stopped his car to seewhat on earth is going on. the farmer asked him if he’d ever seen anythinglike this before? the city fella replied that he had never seenanything like this. the farmer asked if he had any questions. the city fella said, “yes sir, i have onequestion that has been bothering me for 10 minutes.” the farmer told him to go ahead and ask hisquestion. the city fella said, “how fast do you figurethat calf was going when it ran into that

cow?” no, no, no! this is a different situation. it is possible for two people to look at thesame thing and one of them is getting the wrong idea. the bible warned us that it was going to happen. ii peter 3:3 “knowing this first, that thereshall come in the last days scoffers,” did you know that there are people who scoffat the bible? i deal with them on a regular basis. i attractthem like a lightning rod. they scoff, it says, because of their lusts.

there is no scientific reason for them toreject the bible. they just don’t like that book because itchaps their hide. so they are scoffing because of their lusts,not because of their science. even julian huxley admitted it. he said: “i suppose the reason why we leapt at the‘origin of species’ was that the idea of god interfered with our sexualmorã©s.” in other words, “we don’t want god tellingus what to do.” sir arthur keith said, “evolution is unprovedand unprovable. we believe it only because the only alternativeis special creation, and that is unthinkable.”

the bible says (romans 1:28) that “they didnot like to retain god in their knowledge.” ii thessalonians 2:11a “and for this causegod shall send them strong delusion...” anybody that believes that they evolved froma rock 4.6 billion years ago is strongly deluded. you would have to have help to be that dumb.you could not do it on your own. one would have to have years of training andconditioning to believe such an idea. is it possible for a person to go insane?oh yes, that happens, doesn’t it? is it possible for an entire group of peopleto go insane? can you imagine over 900 people drinking poisonedcool-aid and killing themselves? a whole group, as a group, went insane.

is it possible for an entire nation to goinsane? like millions and millions of persons? oh, it has happened, folks. now then, is itpossible for the entire world to go insane? well, the bible says, (revelation 12:9) “andthe great dragon was cast out, that old serpent called the devil, and satan, which deceivesthe whole world.” i think that we are living in a time whenjust about the whole world has gone nuts. they believe that they come from a rock 4.6billion years ago. how dumb can you get? ii peter 3:4, it goes on to say, “where isthe promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from thebeginning of the creation.” that is an important

phrase. the scoffers are going to say that the waythings are happening now is the way they’ve always been. long, slow, gradual processes. the bible saysthat the scoffers are willingly ignorant. willingly ignorant - that means: stupid onpurpose. they are willingly ignorant of how god madethe heavens and the earth. and they’re ignorant of the flood. the worldwas (ii peter 3:6) “overflowed with water and perished.” we cover more on that in video tape numbertwo in our series.

one of the scoffers in the last days was aman named james hutton. now he lived in the late 1700s. he wrote abook that said the earth is millions of years old. you need to understand that in the late 1700smost western people believed the bible. or at least they were strongly influencedby the bible and christianity. and folks generally thought that the earthwas about 6000 years old. that was the common teaching of the day. in the public schools they taught that godcreated the world in six days. but that was also a time of many revolutions.

the american revolution; the french revolution;the polish, the spanish, the german, etc. almost every country then was revolting againstthe idea of a king. they wanted to establish democracies. so theythrew off monarchies. this later became known as the age of anti-monarchy.here the bible teaches to “honor the king.” so some people saw the bible as an obstacleto their political objectives. and they wanted to discredit the bible. keep in mind that this all happened in thelate 1700s through to the early 1800s. so back when everybody thought that the earthwas a few thousand years old james hutton printed his book claiming thatthe earth is much older than that.

and he claimed that it got here by “uniformitarianism.” that is a big word, and it will be on theschool’s test. uniformitarianism means that the present isthe key to the past. no, i think that the bible is the only perfectkey to the past. during that time though the christians didnot fight against that new teaching of “millions they didn’t object; they just accepted it. the christians accepted the idea of a gaptheory, or day-age theory, or progressive creation. they accepted “millions of years” right intothe bible.

but it is obvious to anyone who is reallyreading the bible that is does not teach the millions of years. that is not what it says. so the christiansback then did not put up an effective defense. they allowed the church to begin to believesuch things. and then when the theory of evolution cameout - in 1859 - they then accepted that too! boy, what a tragedy. that book, “the greatturning point” discusses this history. james hutton’s book had a big influence ona young lawyer from scotland, named charles lyell. charles lyell, the lawyer, hated the bible.

you know, someone once calculated that ifall the lawyers in the world were laid end to end around the equator - we would allbe better off! in 1830 charles lyell wrote this book, “principlesof geology.” i have a copy of it on the table. in this book you can see his hatred for thebible - on almost every page. he used the term “ancient doctrines” whichhe mocked, like “scriptural authority.” he referred to “religious prejudices.” hesaid that “men of superior talent” (like himself), “who thought for themselves and were not blindedby authority.” hutton used every opportunity he could findto mock the scriptures. in colleges these days you do not have togo very far

before you will run into a professor witha mocking attitude towards god’s word. how many of you had one or more of them whenyou went through school? it seems like their whole goal in life isto destroy your faith. i had several of them when i went to school.they just want to destroy your confidence. charles lyell said his goal was to “free thescience from moses.” what do you suppose he meant by that? well, before lyell’s book everyone lookedat something like the grand canyon and they’d say, “wow - look what the flooddid!” he did not like people interpreting earth’shistory in the light of the bible.

he wanted them to interpret earth’s historyin terms of millions of years. lyell was the primary person responsible forinventing what is known as the “geologic column.” how many of you have ever heard of the geologiccolumn before? they divided the earth up into layers andgave them all technical-sounding names. cenozoic, mesozoic, paleozoic, and other kindsof big names. maybe you saw the movie, “jurassic park” namedafter the jurassic layer. each layer of rock was given a name, and anage, and an index fossil. now keep in mind that all of this was donein 1830 before there ever was carbon dating. also potassium-argon dating; rubidium-strontiumdating; lead 208; lead 206; uranium-235 & 238;

none of those had even been thought of. so they did not determine those long agesby any radio-metric decay method. they just picked the numbers out of the clearblue sky. it is a fact that the earth has many layersof sedimentary rock. that is a fact. how did they get there? well, there are twointerpretations. one group says that the layers formed slowlyover millions of year. the other group says, no, these layers areall from the flood in the days of noah. but they are always trying to erase that linebetween the two and make their interpretation become part of the facts.

and it’s just not. that is their interpretation,that is all. the geologic column is actually the biblefor the evolutionist. the only place in the world - that you willever find it - is in the textbooks! it does not exist. in this textbook, theyadmit it. the author wrote, “if there were a columnof sediments unfortunately no such column exists.” did you know that there is no real “geologiccolumn?” if there was it would be 100 miles (160 km)thick! it doesn’t not exist. one of the lies in thetextbooks.

actually - all of evolution is based on thislie right here. this lie is one of the most serious ones,in my opinion. it is true that the earth has layers. thatis not the question. but how did those layers get there? i mean, if that layer sat there for 10 millionyears, waiting for the next one don’t you think it is going to rain once ina while? in 10 million years? why are there no erosion marks between thelayers? why are they stacked right on top of eachother just pancakes? and by the way, why are there no soil layersbetween the rock layers?

soil builds up on top of rock, right? shouldn’tthere be some soil layers in there? if you get a jar and fill it with dirt, rocks,gravel, sand and mud and shake it up and then set it down - it will settle intolayers for you in a few minutes. it doesn’t take long. how many of you have seen those things youbuy at the mall with two pieces of glass? they add different kinds of sand in betweenand you flip it over. in moments it makes all kinds of layers. itdoes not take long. years ago, i was preaching at a place in unioncenter, south dakota. now union center is right there.

it is too small to be on the map, actually. and south dakota puts a lot of small townsonto their maps. there were 40 people in the whole town. 38 of them came to church that night. (maybethe other two were pulling a calf) we had a great meeting. and the pastor theresaid that we should go down to rapid city. he said that they have a lot of dinosaur bonesin the museum there. alright - i like dinosaurs! so the next daywe all drove down to rapid city. we came to this museum, and the official guidemet us at the door. he asked if we would like for him to giveus a tour.

we replied that that would be great, sir. so - the first place we stopped at on thetour was the “geologic time chart.” they have it lit up in a special place, safelybehind glass. we stood there and the guide told us thata particular layer of rock was 70 million years old. he had that sanctimonious tone in his voice.somberly, “70 million years old.” well, my daughter was 12 years old at thetime. she raised her hand. she asked, “mister, how do you know that thelayer is 70 million years old?” he said, “honey, that is a good question.”

“we tell the age of the layers by what typesof fossils we find in them.” they are called “index fossils.” and thatis correct; that is what the textbooks teach. “scientists use index fossils to determinethe age of rock layers.” she said, “thank you, sir.” we walked aroundto the other side. and he told us that those bones were about100 million years old. my daughter raised her hand again. she asked, “sir, how do you know those bonesare 100 million years old?” he said, “well, we tell the age of the bonesby which layer they came from.” she said, “well sir, when we were standingover there

you told me that you know the age of thelayers by the bones. now you are telling me that you know theage of the bones by the layers. sir, isn’t that circular reasoning?” i thought wow, a chip off the old block. that guy had the strangest look on his face. it was almost as though he were thinking. he looked at my daughter. then he looked atme. -i wasn’t about to help him! i thought, wow, this is going to be good.i have got to hear his answer. he looked back at my daughter and said, “youare right. that is circular reasoning.”

he said that he had never thought of thatbefore. that fella drove 50 miles each way that eveningto hear me speak in that tiny town. the crowd swelled from 38 to 39! we set upa chair in the aisle. afterwards he talked to me for an hour orso. he asked, “dr. hovind, is everything i believeabout geology wrong?” he also taught geology at the college there. i told him that i like geology. i have a hugefossil collection. i have a rock collection; a mineral collection;i teach earth science; i love studying geology. but as far as the layers being different ages-i said yes sir, i’m sorry, that is all baloney.

it is based on circular reasoning. i willshow you. here is a text that tells kids to “date therocks by the fossils.” and then on the next page it says to “datethe fossils by the rocks.” on the next page and they don’t catch it. this is a lie; it is circular reasoning. “the intelligent layman has long suspectedcircular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils andfossils to date rocks.” “but the geologist has never bothered to thinkof a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth thetrouble as long as the work brings results.”

“it cannot be denied that from a strictlyphilosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle.” “the relative ages of the rocks are determinedby the remains of organisms that they contain.” they date the rocks by the fossils, and thefossils by the rocks. “ever since the beginning of the 19th century, fossils have been and still are the bestand most accurate method of dating and correlating the rocks in whichthey occur.” “apart from very ‘modern’ examples, whichare really archaeology, i can think of no cases of radioactive decaybeing used to date fossils.”

they don’t date fossils by using potassium-argondating or carbon-14 dating. that is not how they do it. “radiometric datingwould not be possible if the geologic column had not been erectedfirst.” “there is no way to simply look at a fossiland say how old it is ...” “...unless you know the age of the rocks itcomes from.” it was niles eldredge who said that! he is one of the most famous evolutionistsalive today. he said, “and this poses something of a problem.” no kidding. it poses a big problem!

“if we date the rocks by the fossils, howcan we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary changethrough time in the fossil record?” circular reasoning. this guy says “the rocksdo date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.” i think the cheese fell out of his sandwich,that’s what i think. this is all based on circular reasoning. anotherguy said, “the charge of circular reasoning can be handledin several ways.” “it can be ignored, as not the proper concernof the public.” “it can be denied, by calling down the lawof evolution.”

“it can be admitted, as a common practiceor it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.” but again, it is all based on circular reasoning. actually, at the scopes monkey trial in 1925over in dayton, tennessee this is what they wanted to use as evidencefor evolution. “the lowest layers are obviously the oldest.”from page 275 of the court transcript. no, the lowest layers are not necessarilythe oldest. did you know that in still water the sedimentarylayers do settle from top to bottom? that is correct. but in moving water - youcan make 5 or 10 layers form simultaneously. they form from one end and travel across.

so it is possible to have a fossil on thebottom that is younger than a fossil on top. if it’s moving water. there is a great video tape called, “experimentsin stratification” for more information on this. or get our video #6 for additional information. i like to question the evolutionists. theirgeologic column contains limestone in many places. if i handed you a piece of limestone how wouldyou know if it is 100 million years old jurassic limestone

or 600 million years old cambrian limestone?exactly what is the difference? they’d say that the only way to tell the differenceis by the index fossils. that, of course, is precisely my point. theydate the layers by the fossils. this textbook shows the kids a trilobite. it says, “boys and girls, trilobites make goodindex fossils. if a trilobite is found in a rock layer, thenthe rock layer was probably formed 500 to 600 million years ago.” i don’t thinkso. somebody found a human shoe print, where theguy’s shoe stepped on a trilobite. they asked evolutionists all over how on earthcould a human step on a trilobite?

if trilobites lived 500 million years agoand man didn’t get here till some 3 million years ago and folks didn’t start wearing shoes untilabout 10,000 years ago, they say. how could a human have stepped on a trilobite? well, one atheist said that obviously somealiens must have visited the planet 500 million years ago. oh, those aliens will do it every time. another guy said that maybe there was a largetrilobite, shaped like a shoe, that fell on a small one.

now, there have been some big trilobites outthere. but they are not shaped like a shoe. actually, the trilobite has the most complicatedeyeball ever! trilobite eyes are unbelievable. and they believe that this was one of thefirst creatures to evolve? and it already has the most complex eyes?! just the eye is one of the most complex features. no, trilobites are not “index fossils” foranything. there are all kinds of different trilobites

and there are probably some still alive today.certainly the baltic isopod is still alive. recently a guy sent me a jar full of trilobitesfrom the prudhoe bay, alaska water treatment plant. when the package arrived in pensacola, florida- they were still alive in the jar! but i don’t know how to keep a trilobite alive.what do you feed them? they all died. they are now in our museumdown in pensacola. somebody just sent me a large one from somewherein the caribbean. it is about 15 inches (40 cm) long. he hadpulled it off a rock, it was still alive. the name for it down there is some kind ofsea “roach.”

a roach? it looked to me like a big trilobite! this textbook shows the kids a graptolite. they claim that it is 410 million years old.no, i don’t think so. actually graptolites have been found stillalive in the south pacific 10 years ago. so if you find graptolite, you can’t use thatas an “index fossil” for any age rock, ok. they tell the kids in school that the lobe-finnedfish is the index fossil for devonian. 325 million years old. see that short legboys and girls? he’s got a little bitty leg and then the fin. that proves he’s evolving from a leg to afin. no, that’s a lie.

the lobe-finned fish, are still alive today,they’re swimming around the indian ocean. when they caught the first one 1938 the scientistslooked at it and said, “wow, would you look at that, they survivedfor 325 million years.” it never dawned on them even once to questiontheir faith in the geologic column. that thought never crossed their brains. you don’t question the geologic column, itis holy and sacred. you just have to say, “it survived for 325million years.” that is in the textbooks today. and they stillsay that it is the index fossil! even though they know they are swimming aroundin the ocean.

how can they be that dumb? this lady wrotea book about it: “a fish caught in time.” yes, boys and girls, this is “our own great-uncleforty million times removed.” she does look a little fishy, doesn’t she?especially around her gills there. you are going to be told that some dinosaursare the index fossils for the jurassic period. 70 million, or cretaceous, 70 million, yearsago. that’s baloney! dinosaur bones were found recently that hadblood cells still in them. how long are the blood cells last? there are also examples of soft tissue discoveredwithin dinosaur bones, still flexible. that was in march of 2005.

here are fossilized human hands found in thesame rock strata as dinosaur bones. they will tell you that the layers are differentages, but that is not true. charles darwin liked detail-sounding numbers. so he claimed that the wealden deposits inengland were 306,662,400 years old. how could he have possibly known such a thing? all over the world petrified trees are foundstanding up. effectively they connect multiple rock layers. petrified trees found in the upright position. now, how long does a dead tree stay standingup before it falls down?

maybe 5 or 10 years, right? 5 million year?oh no, not 5 million. and yet, petrified trees in the vertical positionare found all over the planet. i’ll just flash through some pictures realquick here. there are all kinds of petrified trees foundstanding up. and they are running through multiple layers. and the kids are being taught that the layersare different ages. and yet here’s one tree connecting them all. i am having a hard time believing that theselayers are different ages. central alabama has a large coal mine witha whole bunch of petrified trees standing

up running through two seams of coal. theblue creek and the mary lee. now they’re going to tell you in school, forcoal to form a forest it has to grow and then it all falls over and turns into a swamp andthen it gets buried. and then new mud washes in on top and coalslowly forms from the forest that was buried. then thousands of years later another forestgrows on top. and a whole new layer of coal forms. so if you find two layers of coal, oh thattook thousands of years. that’s what they’ll tell you in school. that is simply baloney. we cover more on coalformation in seminar #6.

if you look at some of the trees found inthis coal mine, just look at all of them. i think i can prove these two coal formationsformed at the same time, very quickly, within a few weeks or months of each other, that’sfor sure. they all probably formed during the floodin the days of noah. in cookville, tennessee, how far is cookvillefrom here?... in cookville, tennessee there is a a coal mine with petrified trees. it is coalified at the bottom - petrifiedin the middle - and then coalified on top! where it went through a second coal seam. it is all the same tree.

by the way, why are coal seams usually foundright on top or rock or clay? wouldn’t that be a poor place to grow a forest?it ought to be on top of soil don’t you think? polystrate fossils are found all over theworld. in joggins, nova scotia, there are dozensof petrified trees standing up connecting rock layers. the scientists just go up there and look atthem, “wow, that is curious.” no, it is more than curious. it is devastatingto their teaching, that the layers are different ages. there is a brochure you can get from us, only$2, that has 30 color pictures of polystrate

fossils. occasionally, the petrified trees are foundupside-down running through many rock layers. now they have really got a problem. i havethought about this until my brain hurts. the evolutionists have two ways to solve this. they can say that the trees stood uprightfor millions of years while the layers formed around them. or, maybe the trees grew through hundredsof feet of solid rock looking for sunlight. but there is a third way to look at it - maybethey were all buried in a big flood. mount st. helens blew thousands of trees intospirit lake on may 18, 1980.

lots of those trees are now stuck in the mudat the bottom of spirit lake. they are going to petrify in the standingposition. we have more in seminar #6 about that. it does not take long for things to petrify. here is petrified firewood that was choppedon - before it turned to stone. this is a mummified dog that is stuck in atree. apparently he chased a raccoon up a tree andgot stuck there. here is a petrified cowboy boot with the cowboy’sleg still in it. the boot was originally made in 1950. theleg inside has turned to stone.

this is a petrified fish giving birth. itdoes not take millions of years to give birth. this is a petrified hat. and a petrified picklethat was found in a jar. the guy sent me the jar and pickle. he saidthat he’d found it in montana. it was an old abandoned home. he asked meif i wanted a petrified pickle for our museum. i said, “of course, who in their right mindwould not want a petrified pickle!” come down to dinosaur adventure land - andsee the petrified pickle. these are petrified sacks of flour that werefound in an old flour mill. it had flooded back in 1910, down in arkansas.this is a petrified toad stool. there is an amazing gem and mineral museumjust south of bloomington, illinois.

in a little tiny town called shirley illinois,you have to be trying to find it to get there. but it’s worth going to see the funk gem andmineral museum. these are petrified acorns. a kid sent themto me. he said that he was seven years old when heput them into a bucket of water. he thought they would sprout and make trees.but he forgot about them. by the next spring the acorns had turned tostone. he asked if we would like them for our museum.i said, “of course.” come down and see the petrified acorns. we have more on petrification in seminar #6.

so kids, when they tell you the layers aredifferent ages, you tell them kent hovind said they are confused or they’re lying. it isnot correct. this is lie number 5. those layers all formed, nearly all of them,at the time of noah’s flood. eighty to 85% of earth’s surface does noteven have 3 geologic periods appearing in consecutive order. even though this geologic column does notexist in the world - except in the textbooks - that teaching is what changed people, in the1830’s, away from believing the bible to believing

in uniformitarianism. this teaching especially affected a youngpreacher. he just got out of bible college, studiedto be a pastor of a church. his name was charles darwin. anybody everheard of charles darwin? charles darwin graduated from bible collegeto be a preacher. and he was going to sail around the worldfor 5 years first. he would collect some bugs for some “bugologists”(entomologists) back there in england. so he brought some books with him. he broughthis bible, of course. he just got out of bible college, and he broughtthis brand new book, “principles of geology.”

darwin later said that book changed his lifeforever. later, he wrote to a friend and said, “disbelief[in the bible] crept over me slowly. i felt no distress.” he slowly lost his faith in the bible. as darwin sailed around the world, the shipstopped off at the galapagos islands. there in those islands, he noticed there were14 different varieties of finches. these are little tiny birds with a littletiny beak, but the beak shapes were different. more recently folks went there and studiedthem some more. they found out that during dry years, thebeak is a tenth of a millimeter thicker.

and during wet years, it’s a tenth of a millimeterthinner. but it always averages back out. a tenth ofa millimeter: do you know how much that is? not much. darwin looked at the birds and said, “youknow what? i think all these birds had a common ancestor.” i bet you’re right, charles, it was: abird. but then charlie said, “well, maybe this provesthat birds and bananas are related.” you say, “he never says that.” well, he suredid. i knew you wouldn’t believe me so i brought his book.

it’s right here. “the origin of species” bycharles darwin. on page 170, darwin says, “it’s a truly wonderfulfact that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be relatedto each other.” isn’t he saying that the birds and bananasare related? he sure is. this is a lie. what charlie observed is what is sometimescalled micro-evolution. micro-evolution tells us that dogs producea variety of dogs. that’s a fact. it happens, okay? and roses produce a variety of roses. nobodyis arguing about that. the question is, does it go any farther thanthat?

you may get a big dog or a little dog, butyou get a dog every time. and probably the dog, the wolf, and the coyotehad a common ancestor. i wouldn’t argue about that. we did a testthis morning. we had a 5-year-old girl. we said, ok, herewe have a dog, a wolf, a coyote and a banana. which one is not like the others? she gotit: the banana. we’ve got college professors can’t figurethat out. as national geographic says the evolutionof dogs from wolves. well, duh. nobody’s arguing about that. yeah, dogs camefrom wolves. the bible says they bring forth after theirkind. ten times it says that in the first

chapter of genesis. see, this word “evolution” has 6 differentmeanings. we’ve been through this before, so i’m goingto go through it kind of quickly. there is first of all “cosmic evolution,”the big bang. secondly, “chemical evolution” where all thechemicals come from hydrogen. that’s baloney. thirdly, “stellar evolution” where all thestars formed from dust. you cannot get dust to condense into a solidstar. it can’t happen. there’s boyle’s gas laws that drive it away,ok? then, there’s enough stars out there though,we can all have 11 trillion to ourselves.

then you have “organic evolution” where lifegets started from non-living material. and then “macro-evolution” where an animalchanges to a different kind of animal. none of those 5 have ever been observed! number 6: variations within the kinds, sometimescalled “micro-evolution.” that one happens. the first 5 are religious. so whenever youdiscuss evolution, you have to define what you’re talking about. if you’re talking about #6, i’m with you.i agree that happens. if you’re talking about the first 5 - noneof those happen. those are things that they believe happens.

watch how they change the definition for thekids. they say, “okay, boys and girls, evolutionis change over time.” oh, is that really what they mean? watch this carefully now. in other words,living things have changed over time. wait, wait, wait. are they going to skip over the first four? they just want to bypass the first 4 stageslike it’s not part of the theory? well then, they don’t have a coherent theory. then they say, “evolution can be defined asa change in species over time.”

now they’re down to what i believe in. i thinkevery species can and do change. i think you can get some really weird varietiesof animals, but they’re still the same kind. okay? this is a lie, kids, that’s not really whatthey mean by evolution. they want to give you examples of only #6and make you believe that the whole theory has been proven. don’t get brainwashed. evolution is not true. most evolutionists will say, “well, macro-evolutionis just micro- but with longer periods of time.”

no, it’s not. they had a big conference onthis very question in chicago. they said, “the central question of the chicagoconference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolatedto explain the phenomena of macroevolution.” the answer can be given as a clear - no. itdoesn’t work. variations happen, sure, but they have limits. did you know, farmers have been trying toget bigger pigs for a long time. you think they’ll ever get a pig as big astexas? i bet there’s a size limit, isn’t there? roaches become resistant to pesticides. doyou think they’ll ever become resistant to a sledgehammer?

probably not. you see, there’s a tiger thathad 3 kittens, all different colors, same litter. that’s variations, but it’s still a tiger.that’s not evolution. they always end up producing the same kindof offspring - just like the bible says. the information for the new variety had tobe in the gene code already or it couldn’t produce it. no new information is ever added. the genepool of the new variety is always more limited. somebody spent years cross-breeding dogs todevelop the chihuahua. all of that money to make a dog that is 100%useless. i mean, think about it.

how long would the chihuahuas last in thereal world. turn them all loose into the woods. watch what happens. they run up to the wolf.yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. crunch, end of gene code, right? genetic informationis lost, not added, when you get a strange variety. real evolution would need an increase in geneticcomplexity. we don’t ever observe that. i grew up in illinois, that is corn country. did you know they have so many kinds of cornup there, they have to number them? you can be driving down the highway, and there’sa sign that says bx65. don’t mix it with xl29, something will explode.

well, folks, you can cross-breed corn a lot,but you are always going to get corn. you’re never going to get a hamster to a tomatoor a whale to grow on your cornstalk. it just isn’t going to happen, ok? there are many varieties of dogs in the world,and they might have had a common ancestor: a dog. here’s bbc news: “it looks like 95% of currentdogs came from just 3 original founding females.” hey, they’re getting closer. right here itsays, “today’s dogs come in all shapes and sizes, but scientists believe they evolved from justa handful of wolves tamed by humans

living in or near china less than 15,000 yearsago.” they’re getting closer. man, if they keep studying the science, they’regoing to be an independent baptist when they’re done. when you get done climbing the mountain oftruth, that’s where you end up, you know? this irish textbook calls it divergent evolution.oh, come on. they show 5 dogs around a wolf. that’s not divergent evolution. don’t giveit a fancy name. it’s still a dog. it’s just a variety of dog. this mexican textbook says, “the horse andthe zebra had a common ancestor.” i agree. it looked like a horse. you know, all thestandard horse equipment. they’ve got little

tiny horses today. we had the world’s smallest horse come visitour dinosaur adventure land. talk about useless. i mean, you can’t ride it. well, my granddaughtercould, but it won’t bark like a dog either. what do you do with a horse like this? youknow, horses, zebras and asses can all be crossbred. they have a competition in california - whocan get the weirdest animal. they’ll get: zorses, zonkeys, zeonies, z-donks,zebrass, and shebras. here’s a zebra who forgot to put his pajamason. here’s a herd of zebroids running around. you know, in the last hundred years, the kentuckyderby has gone from

an average running speed of 127 seconds downto 123 seconds. even in the old days, they had some prettylow times turned in. question: how much money has been spent on breedingtrying to get the fastest horse for the kentucky derby? millions and millions of dollars. they dothe same thing right around here, don’t they? don’t some folks spend a lot of money fora tennessee walker horse? what’s the most expensive tennessee walkinghorse that you’ve ever heard of? a million dollars for one horse? three millionfor one horse? that’s how much per pound? when i was in italy, we ate horse over there.it was good too. it tasted like chicken.

i don’t know if they’ve gotten to the absolutelimits of horse speed or not. i don’t know. but i suspect they’re getting kind of close,ok? if you really want to win the kentucky derby,why don’t you breed wings on your horse and fly around the track in 12 seconds? thewhole point is, sure, you get varieties, but they’re limited. there are many different kinds of cows inthe world, and they might have a common ancestor: a cow. there are magazines where you order chickens. all right, boys and girls, which kind of chickenbreed should we order?

look at what the magazine says, “jungle fowlare the original bird from which all varieties and strains of domesticatedchickens are derived.” did you know all the chickens had a commonancestor? anybody want to guess what it was? chicken.you got it. there are 8 kinds of bears in the world, andthey might have had a common ancestor: a bear. you know, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower,and brussels sprouts all have a common ancestor. it is called aplant. in california, they have huge fields wherethey graft english walnut trees onto black

walnut stumps. they do it because for the black walnut stump,the root system is tough. it can handle the weather over there. butthe black walnut doesn’t taste as good, it doesn’t sell for as much money, and it’stougher to crack. english walnuts taste better. they sell for more money, and they’re easierto crack, but the root system rots. so they cut them off and stick them together.they do it all over there. well, they can do it because they’re botha walnut. see, you could never graft an english walnuttree onto the back of a turtle. that won’t work, see? the sugar beets wereused for years when sugar got expensive.

they wanted to get sugar out of beets. so they tried to do selective breeding toincrease the sugar content in sugar beets. they raised it from 6% to 17%, but that wasthe maximum. you can’t go past 17, and the further theygot away from the normal wild sugar beet, the more problems they started having. nowyou’ve got to babysit the field and spray pesticides and everything else onit because its disease resistance goes down. people say, “don’t bacteria become resistantto drugs?” well, that’s because they lose information,not gain it. i’ll show you. dr. spetner points out, “this is based ona misunderstanding.

for the mutations that cause antibiotic resistancestill involve information loss. for example, to destroy bacteria, the antibioticstreptomycin attaches to part of the bacterial cell called ribosomes. mutations sometimes cause a structural deformityin ribosomes. since the antibiotic cannot connect with themisshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant.” even though this mutation turns out to bebeneficial for the moment, it still constitutes a loss of information,not a gain. no evolution has taken place. the bacteriaare not stronger. in fact, under normal conditions with no antibioticpresent, they are weaker than their non-mutated

cousins. i’ll give you an example. suppose somebody’scome into your town, and they’re handcuffing everybody. they take them off to jail, and then, they’regoing to kill them. but you don’t have any arms. so they can’t handcuff you. ha, ha, ha. isthat a beneficial mutation to not have arms? well, yeah, for the moment, ok? but in thelong-term, it’s not beneficial, right? and so all the examples they ever point toare bacteria becoming resistant to drugs. that’s a loss of information, not a gain.the bible is correct. they bring forth after

their kind. james hutton wrote a book in 1795, and peoplebegan to doubt the earth was 6000 years old. charles lyell wrote a book in 1830, and peoplebegan to doubt the flood. and charles darwin’s book made people doubtthe creator. by the mid-1800s, people were wondering, “wow,if god didn’t do it, how did we get here?” “who’s in charge of the world?” that led directlyto the rise of communism, marxism, socialism, nazism. we’ll cover that on seminar part 5: politicallyincorrect, “the dangers of this evolution theory.”

now darwin didn’t originate the evolutiontheory. it was around a long time before him. he just simply made it popular. but timothywas warned by paul here in 1 timothy 6:20 “ye be careful about avoiding profane andvain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.” evolution is not science. evolution is a religionin every sense of the word. hitler said, “let me control the textbooksand i will control the state.” professor e.o. wilson at harvard universitysaid, “as were many persons from alabama, i was a born-again christian. when i was 15,i entered the southern baptist church with great fervor and interest in the fundamentalistreligion.

i left at 17 when i got to the universityof alabama and heard about evolution theory.” he lost his faith the first year of college.that’s what happened to phillip wentworth who studied for the ministry at harvard, losthis faith, gave up on the ministry. that’s what happened to a young man named,scott, from iowa. he almost lost his faith until someone showed him one of my video tapes,and he said, “oh man, you saved my faith, brother hovind.” marty, from ontario, canada, wrote me andsaid, “i want to let you know, your ministry has been a blessing to me. i’mone of the high school students in the anthropology class

that is a victim of the dangers of evolutionteaching. i was very discouraged and questioned theexistence of god. i listened to your seminars and that completelyencouraged me and was a blessing to me.” yeah, rescued one. it’s amazing how many thousandsof people down through history have lost their faith because of this evolutionteaching. karl marx studied and had said that he wantedto serve god with his life. he went off to college to study philosophyand became an evolutionist. comrade joseph stalin. there was a specialthis afternoon on tv. how many saw that about comrade stalin onthe history channel?

he went to a christian school, but he alsoread darwin’s book. he became an atheist and killed between 60and 100 million of his own people! andrew carnegie became an evolutionist byreading darwin’s book. he said it freed him from the shackles ofreligion. “light came in as a flood. all was clear. not only had i got rid of theology and thesupernatural, but i found the truth of evolution.” carnegie left behind millions of dollars tomake sure evolution is taught in our schools instead of creation. he funded the “national center for sciencein education.” the list is really long. we’ll

have to quit now. but 75% of kids from christian homes who goto public schools lose their faith after 1 year of college. what’s in these textbooks anyway? what arethey teaching our kids that’s making them lose their faith? we’ll cover more lies in the textbooks inthe next session. there’s still no known evidence to supportthe evolution theory. it was disproven long ago. if real evidence exists for this evolutiontheory, i would like to see it.

we’ve been offering a quarter of a milliondollars for real scientific evidence for evolution. we’ve had that offer for over 10 years. thereisn’t any evidence. i’ll give you an example. suppose i had a theory that the moon is madeof green cheese. now that’s a dumb theory, i know, but hey,it’s okay to have a dumb theory. there are no laws against dumb theories. butthen suppose i started teaching my students, “hey kids, did you know nasa proved my theoryin 1973 when they went there on a secret mission and drilled a hole andfound the moon is made of green cheese?” well now, hold on a minute. it’s okay to havea dumb theory. it’s not okay to lie about my evidence formy theory.

it is worse for me to get paid by tax dollarswhile i lie about my theory. so i don’t mind if they want to have a theorythat we came from a rock. that doesn’t bother me. it does bother me that they want to lie tothe students about their evidence. and it really bothers me that i have to paytheir salary while they lie to support their theory. so here’s some of the (supposed) evidencethey use for evolution theory. they say, “we have evidence from fossils.”i say, “guys, you’ve got to be kidding.” no fossil counts as evidence for evolution.none. if you can find bones in the dirt, all

you know is it died. you don’t know it had any kids. no fossilcould count as evidence for evolution. none. they say, “we have evidence from structure,from molecular biology, from development.” well, let’s talk about a few of these. evolutionis dead. the theory is defunct. there is no evidenceto support it. but some of the followers are pretty dedicated,and they’re having a hard time letting it go. they’ll even lie to you to make you thinkeverything’s fine. they say, “wow, look at that evolution theory.it’s perfectly fine. there’s no challenge

to evolution.” “look, it never looked better. pulse and heartrate look good.” no, i’m sorry, he’s a goner. don’t be the last one off the boat. it issinking. evolution is based on 2 faulty assumptions. number 1: they say mutations make somethingnew. that’s never been observed. number 2: natural selection makes us surviveand take over the population. evolution is actually a religion of death. in order for evolution to work, one animalevolves a little better than the rest. what must happen to the rest of them to makethis thing work? they’ve got to die or else the new improvedgene is swamped back into the gene code.

the question is so simple and profound. “did man bring death into the world?” likethe bible says - or - “did death bring man into the world?” likeevolution says. somebody is wrong. the textbook says there are mutations, andthey are the original source of variation in populations. i agree. mutations happen, no question. butmutations do not produce any evolution. mutations are scrambling up existing geneticcode. they’re not making anything new. here’s a 5-legged bull that’s a mutant. there’sno new information added. he already had the information on how to makea leg. it just made one in the wrong place,

that’s all. it’s not new information. it is scrambledinformation. here’s a short-legged sheep. again, no new information. and by the way,that’s not beneficial. he’s the first one the wolf is going to catch.right? oh no, let’s run! here comes the wolf! burr, uh-huh, herman didn’t make it, umm.there’s a 2-headed lamb. that’s a mutant. it’s not beneficial. two-headed turtle, that’sa mutant. it’s not a ninja, but it’s a mutant. now, he’s going to freeze his first winterbecause nobody makes a double-necked turtle-necked sweater. he’s just not going to make it. now scramblingup the letters of the word “christmas”

will get you all sorts of different words.but it will never get you xerox, zebra or queen. the letters aren’t available. this textbookshows the kids a 4-winged fly. by the way cannot fly, and it says, “boysand girls, normal fruit flies have 2 wings. this mutant has four. this rare mutation,like most mutations, is harmful.” then it says, “beneficial mutations are theraw material for natural selection.” well, now, hold on a minute. why don’t theyshow us an example of a beneficial mutation? why do they tell us about the good ones andnot show us a picture of a good one? you know why they didn’t show a picture ofgood mutation? because nobody’s ever seen

one. there’s never been one beneficial mutation. i said that in a debate one time, and thisatheist said, “hovind, you’re lying.” he said, “i can name a beneficial mutationright now.” he said, “people in africa that get sicklecell anemia are less likely to get malaria.” i said, “that’s brilliant, sir. that’s likesaying if you cut off your legs, you can’t get athletes’ foot. um-hmm.” (laughter) they’re both negative.then they say evolution and natural selection go together.

this one says, “natural selection causes evolution.”that’s a lie. natural selection selects. it doesn’t create anything. natural selectionis not a creative force. natural selection may be a stabilizing force,but it’s not a creative force. anybody with half a brain could figure thatout. natural selection cannot create any properties. it can only select. this textbook says, “evolutionby natural selection had occurred in just 1 year.” oh, they’re lying. it says, “natural selectioncan lead to evolution.” that’s a lie. natural selection selects. it doesn’t createa thing. this is lie number 8. if you worked in a factory to make cars, howfar is the saturn plant from here?

pretty close, isn’t it? how many of you, anybodyhere work in the saturn plant? okay. suppose you worked in quality control. your job was to check the car when they gotdone building it, you know, kick the tires, slam the doors, and drive it around to seeif it runs. if you caught every single mistake (they don’t,by the way), but if you did, how long would it take that quality controlprocess to change the car into an airplane? you say, “hovind, quality control can’t changeit to something else.” oh, i know. only design engineers can changeit. and god’s natural selection is a quality controlthat will never change it to a different animal.

it will just make sure you get a good animal,that’s all. they keep talking about “survival of the fittest.” well, i agree, but that doesn’t explain “arrivalof the fittest.” and even survival of the fittest is pretty shaky. it’s what’s called a tautology - a sentencethat means nothing. i’ll show you. you could say, “professor, why did it survive?”he’ll say, “oh, because it’s the fittest. you know, survival of the fittest.” how doyou know it’s the fittest? “uh, because it survived. how else can youtell?” oh, i see. look, if a whale goes through a school offish and eats 80% of them, it’s not survival

of the fittest. it’s actually survival of the luckiest. that’swhat’s really going on out there. but some of these scientists have the abilityto make amazing observations and still come to thewrong conclusion. one day, a bunch of scientists were goingto see how far a frog could jump. they put the big old frog down there and said,“jump, frog, jump!” that frog jumped 80 inches. they brought the frog back, cut off 1 leg,and said, “jump, frog, jump!” he only jumped 70. they brought him back, cut off another leg,and said, “jump, frog, jump!” he went 60.

they brought him back, cut off another leg,and said, “jump, frog, jump!” he jumped 50 inches. they brought the frog back, cut off his lastleg, and said, “jump, frog, jump!” you know, they expected he might go maybe40 based on the data. actual jump was zero. the frog didn’t move. they yelled louder.“jump, frog!” the frog never moved. the scientists were baffled. they tried theexperiment again. new frog. got the same results every time. so the brilliant scientists put their datatogether and said, “you know what, folks? the frog jumped less as the legs were removed.”hey, that’s a good observation.

they got it right on the head. then, theysaid, “so we must conclude that a frog with no legsgoes deaf.” (laughter) bad conclusion. it’s possible to have a good observation andstill come to the wrong conclusion, you know. that’s what they did with the fruit flies. they put some flies in the laboratory, theynuked them, microwaved them, x-rayed them. they did all kinds of mean things to thoseflies, and they got some weird looking baby flies. they got flies with curled wings. they flyaround, buzz, couldn’t go anywhere. they got flies with no wings at all. hmm.what do you call that, a crawl or a walk?

it can’t fly. they raised all these mutated flies in thelaboratory and said, “you know what, folks? fruit flies refuse to become anything butfruit flies.” well, duh! so they said, “all mutations produced fliesthat are inferior to the original fly.” good observation. they said, “so we must conclude that flieshave evolved as far as they can go.” oh, bad conclusion. you know, maybe you could conclude that godmade them right to begin with and all you’re doing is messing them up inyour laboratory.

they were doing fine until you guys got holdof them. yeah. then they say, “evolution is as fit as ever. the fruit flies in the north have wings 4%larger than flies in the south.” well, that proves something to somebody somewhere,i’m sure. but it’s still a fly. then, they tell the kids the peppered mothis proof for evolution. they counted the moths in the trees and foundthere were 95% light-colored and 5% black. then, they burned coal in the factories, andthe trees turned black. and they counted the moths again, and therewere only 5% light and 95% black. the problem is the entire story is a lie.lie number 9.

they glued dead moths to the tree to takethat picture for your kid’s textbook. it’s right here. where is this book used at, brother? it’snot used anymore? peppered moth. it’s still in the new books though. evidencefor evolution. those are dead moths glued on a tree becauseafter 40 years of watching, they found a grand total of 2 moths sittingon tree trunks. only two moths. let’s see, what’s 95% of 2? wow, i’ll have to do some figuring on thatone. they still keep it in the textbooks thoughas evidence for evolution.

what’s the tulsa zoo doing having a pepperedmoth display? i mean, this is a zoo for heaven’s sake! whydo they push evolution in a zoo? you can get the book, “icons of evolution,”if you want a whole lot more on the history of this peppered moth idea. but they tellthe kids, “we’re going to learn to think critically. boys and girls, do you think humans are stillevolving?” what kind of question is that? that’s one of those questions like, “haveyou stopped beating your wife yet?” wow, let me think. if i say yes, i’m admitting i did. if i sayno, i’m still doing it. did you know it’s possible for the questionto already have a built-in assumption? look

at that question. do you think humans are still evolving? what’sthe built-in assumption? that humans evolved. how’s a christian kid supposed to answer thatin his homework for monday, hmmm? i would say, “teacher, this question is poorlywritten. it assumes evolution has happened when it has not.” it’s like asking the question, “why are elephantsorange?” boy, now there’s a tough one. why are they orange anyway? uh, they’re notorange, um-hmm. this is not learning to think critically. this is a soviet-style indoctrination-typebrainwashing question.

and when the kid gets done taking this class,he’s going to think he knows how to think. but he doesn’t. he knows how to be told whatto believe. and he never understands how it happened tohim. that’s not thinking critically. then, they tell the kids, “we’ve got evidencefor evolution from homologous structures.” wow, what’s that mean? yes, boys and girls,did you know you have 2 bones in your wrist. and they’re called the radius and the ulna?pretty cool. and did you know, the alligator has 2 bonesin his forelimb, and look at this, they’re called radius and ulna? see that? that proves we are related. that’swhat they’re going to tell them.

“homologous structures provide evidence thatthese animals evolved from a common ancestor.” it’s found in just about every textbook. you’ve got them in these other ones up here,i’m sure, don’t you, steve? homologous structure as evidence for evolution. “they descended from a common ancestor,” thetextbook says. think critically. the bones are the same, boys and girls. “see,that proves we’re related.” evolved from a forelimb of a common ancestor. this textbook says, “comparative anatomy providesfurther evidence of evolution. the commonality suggests that these and othervertebrate animals are all related.

they probably evolved from a common ancestor.”this is a lie. they probably have a common designer, um-hmmm. you know that different bones in differentanimals come from different genes on the chromosomes? they’re not homologous to begin with. andeven if they were, that still wouldn’t prove common ancestor. it proves a common designer. the same designermade them all. did you know that lug nuts from a pontiacwill fit on a chevy? you go out in the parking lot and try it. they will. that proves that both evolved froma honda 14 million years ago! no.

it’s true many animals have a similar forelimbstructure. that’s a good observation. i agree. they say, “they must have had a common ancestor.”oh, bad conclusion. then they’ll say, “this helps prove we allcame from a rock.” well, now you really have got a bad conclusionthere. then, they tell the kids, “we have evidencefrom development.” now this one makes me angry. so i’m going to try to stay calm while wetalk about it. this is probably one of the most dangerouslies in the textbooks. let me just calm down now. ok, i’m ready. this textbook says, “the similarity betweenearly stages of development .

of many different animals helped convincedarwin that all forms of life shared common ancestors. darwin considered this the strongest classof facts in favor of his theory.” this was the best evidence darwin knew offor his theory. the guy who made up this dumb idea is namedernst haeckel. haeckel called this idea we are about to sharewith you the “biogenetic law.” it means that as animals develop inside themother, they go through the stages of evolution. all you’ve got to do is memorize the wordfarm, f-a-r-m. fish; amphibian; reptile; mammal. that’s the way they say it happened.

the phrase they had for it back then was,“ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” wow. what’s all that mean? well, ontogeny is thegrowth of the baby. it goes through stages, they say. recapitulates means it reenacts or does overagain. phylogeny is the evolutionary sequence. this irish textbook says, “the presence offish-like structures in embryos of different species shows these animals have evolved from fishand share the basic pattern of fish development. it’s as if the embryo retains a memory ofits origins and starts to copy them during its development.”

that’s the “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.” now, the idea that sigmund freud relied on,was the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. that is, the development of the individualrecapitulates the evolution of the entire species. this is stupid and dangerous. they tell thekids the embryo or the baby growing in the mother has gills like a fish. gills? that’s a lie.those are not gill slits. lie number 11. those little folds of skin you see on theembryo grow into bones in the ear and glands in the throat.

they never have anything to do with breathing.my uncle had 5 or 6 chins. and he couldn’t breathe through any of thembut the top one. those are not gill slits. ernst haeckel said the turning point in histhinking was when he read darwin’s book in 1860. see, darwin’s book was printed in englishin 1859. the next year, it was printed in german, 1860. haeckel was a german embryology professor. he read the book and said, “wow, what a greattheory. if only we had some evidence.” well, 9 years later, they still had no evidence,so haeckel decided to help out.

he was going to make some evidence. haeckeltook a drawing of a dog and a human embryo. he was an embryology professor, you know,and - he lied. he faked the drawings. he changed them and made them look exactlyalike to try to prove that they’re related. it just is a bald-faced lie. haeckel madegiant posters of his fake drawings and traveled all over germany and convertedthe people to believing in evolution. and this led to the next obvious question:hey, if evolution is true, i wonder which race of humans has evolvedthe farthest? and guess who the germans thought it was.oh, yeah, we’ll talk more about that later. now, on top are haeckel’s fake drawings, thenunderneath are the actual photographs of these

animals. he lied. his own university held a trial andconvicted him of fraud. he said at the trial, “i should feel utterlycondemned were it not that hundreds of the best observers and biologists lie underthe same charge.” this biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. it’s not true, but it can’t be taken out ofthe textbooks for some reason. it’s been proven wrong since 1875, and theystill keep it in the books. it’s still used in this book, “evolutionaryanalysis,” college textbook, 1998 edition. it is used at the university of west florida,with the exact same chart from ernst haeckel.

now, it’s only been proven wrong since 1875. i know it takes a while to get textbooks up-to-date,but that’s long enough. i think 130 years, they ought to be able toget it out by now, don’t you think? more about the gill slits in this book: “iconsof evolution.” darwin’s theory, his book came out in 1859.he predicted they would find evidence. in 1869, haeckel faked the drawings. in 1875, it was proven wrong, but it’s stillin textbooks used all over the planet. a 2004 textbook still has it. a 2005 textbook, and i pronounced it wrong,it’s chickasha, oklahoma.

i got corrected during the break; it is stillteaching the baby has gill pouches. notice for example, gill pouches. gill slitson the embryo. they’re teaching this in textbooks all overthe world. it’s only been proven wrong since 1875. get it out of the book! tear the page out.i mean, it’s a no-brainer. tear out the page. it’s not true. here’s a junior high textbook telling theman embryo has gill slits. this one says, “similarly, humans and fishembryos resemble each other because humans and fish share a common ancestor.these similarities provide evidence

that these 3 animals evolved from a commonancestor.” tiny gill slits; gill slits on the human embryo.gills of fish; tiny gill pouches, used in college textbooks. here’s a 2004 textbook saying, “evidence ofevolution is seen in development of embryos.” you can’t get a high score on sat or act collegetests unless you lie and say the baby has gill pouches. it’s found on every single test we could find.if you don’t believe in evolution, you won’t score high to get into college.or at least you’d have to give the evolution answer.

why would they keep this in the textbooks130 years after it has been proven wrong? there’s only 1 answer i can come up with.i’ll tell you in a minute. this one shows a 5-6 week embryo, and it says,“by 7 months, the fetus looks from the outside like a tiny normal baby, but it’s not.” it’snot a baby at 7 months? hello? that’s is lie number 12. it’s a human at conception; 34% of babiesborn at 5-1/2 months will survive. one lady had surgery on her baby before itwas born. they carefully cut the mother open, cut theuterus open, and the baby is holding the doctor’s finger at 5 monthsalong.

let’s see, the angel of the lord said, “behold,thou art with fetus.” no, i believe he said, you’re with child,didn’t he? yeah, it’s a child before it’s born. scott peterson is accused of murdering hiswife and unborn child. now paula zahn, you hypocrite. don’t you think it’s ok to have an abortionand yet you call it an unborn child? scott peterson is found guilty of murderinghis wife and ...son. that’s because in california you have to havea double homicide to get the death penalty. so in that case they wanted it to be a sonor a child.

but the rest of the time they don’t, so thatif you want to have an abortion, it’s okay. now it’s not a child, it’s just a fetus. well,let’s get consistent here folks, ok? which is it? more about embryology on this one, but whydo they keep this in the textbooks? it’s very simple. that’s the only way to justify abortion. theywant you to think it’s not human yet. somebody wants to reduce the population ofthis planet. and abortion has already done 20% of the entireworld’s population has been killed by abortion. one billion people. let’s see, hitler killed6 million, stalin about 100 million, abortions

1,000 million. that’s going to work. we’ll cover more onthat on video 5. ana rosa had her arm chopped off in a botchedabortion. she was born anyway. they thought they killed her. everybody says,“oh, that’s terrible.” what if they would have cut her head off instead?we never would have heard about ana rosa. now, i live in pensacola, florida. you mighthave heard of my town. we’ve had 2 doctors that were doing abortionsthat were shot and killed. several clinics have been blown up or burneddown. i did not shoot any doctors, and i did notblow up any clinics, ok?

and i don’t think jesus would do it that way.he grew up under roman control. he didn’t go around blowing up tanks and burningdown bridges. but when the first doctor got shot, i waspreaching in fort lauderdale. the next day, i flew home, and right in frontof me on the airplane were 2 ladies. i’m sorry, 2 women from noww, the nationalorganization for wild women. and they were flying up to pensacola, goingto have a big rally and march around town, you know? as we got off the airplane, i noticed on theirshirt, it had in huge block letters, “choice above all.”

so being my mild-mannered self, i said, “excuseme, ma’am. what does this mean, choice above all?” she said, “a woman ought to have the rightto choose.” i said, “choose what?” she said, “choose to have an abortion. it’sher body.” i said, “well, yes, ma’am. if she wants to abort her body, i supposethat’s fine. but it looks to me like she wants to abortsomebody else’s body.” um-hmm. when you consider half of them are male. thinkabout it; it’s not her body. um-hmm. i said, “by the way, ma’am, i’m kind of curiousabout this. i have 3 kids. i delivered one of my kids at home. i usedto raise hamsters.

i taught biology and anatomy. i’m kind offamiliar with this process.” i said, “why does the woman’s right to choicestop at birth? why don’t we let the mother choose to killthem after it’s born? it would be a lot safer and simpler. hey, why don’t we extend abortion rights upuntil the kid is 2 years old?” i know a lot of mothers with a 2-year-oldthat have thought about it a time or two. i won’t ask you to raise your hand, but iknow you’re out there. oh, i’ve got it. let’s extend abortion rights up until thekid is 18. whew, i bet they’d behave a lot better.

“son, one more time, and i’m going to abortyou.” (laughter) “hey teacher, where’s johnny today?” “oh, he didn’t do his homework yesterday,so his mommy aborted him.” hey, grades would skyrocket, wouldn’t they? by the way, peter singer is pushing for abortionafter the baby is born. he’s trying to get legislation passed so youcan kill the baby up to 28 days after it’s born and still callit an abortion. have you ever noticed the news media callsthem “pro-choice” and they call guys like me “anti-abortion?”

they do that “anti-abortion” because it’sa negative-sounding term. “pro-choice” is such a positive-sounding term. how about let’s call me “pro-life” and callthem “pro-death,” and we both get a positive-sounding term? that’s why i refuse to take the paper. i justcan’t stand their liberal slant on everything. we get a call once in a while, “hey, you wantto take the pensacola news journal?” i say, “no, ma’am, we don’t have a parakeet.”click. (laughter) that’s what i tell them. see, the media is going to ignore the wishesof the majority, and they’re going to push their liberal agenda.

we’ll cover more on that in part 5. rememberwhen the kids got shot in columbine, colorado? right away, they jumped on the gun controlissue. you know, if kids keep getting shot in our schools, maybe it’s time to considersome other issues like: should we have public schools? or maybe: should we teach them evolution?that’s what did the columbine shooting. those kids were real strong believers in evolution.they made a videotape before the shooting. one of the boys said, “he doesn’t deservethe jaw evolution gave him. look for his jaw. it won’t be on his body.” they were strongbelievers in evolution. they did the shooting on hitler’s birthday,on purpose.

they shot isaiah shoels just because he wasblack. eric’s t-shirt said “natural selection.” and then rosie o’donnell said, “see, we needmore gun control.” (sigh) rosie, rosie, rosie. blaming guns for columbine is like blamingspoons for rosie o’donnell being fat. it’s not the spoon’s fault. it’s not the gun’sfault. maybe certain criminals ought to be publicly executed. maybe it’s time to think that one throughone more time. maybe all law-abiding citizens should be requiredto carry guns to protect themselves. um-hmm. suppose every teacher in the public schoolwas required to be armed. just suppose. how far down the hallway would those kidshave gotten? somebody sent me this button:

“proudly unarmed” would you wear this button?what does this say to a criminal? it says: “rob me!!” (laughter) isn’t thatexactly what it says? of course. the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendmentso we could keep and bear arms. and it wasn’t so that we could go duck-hunting. the purpose of the 2nd amendment was so wecould defend ourselves if the government goes bad. last ditch defense against an evil governmentis an armed citizenry. did you ever notice that a lot of animalsthat eat grass have horns? did you know, you don’t need horns to eatgrass?

the purpose of the horns is to explain tothe lion, “stay off my back. i just want to eat the grass. leave me alone.” and i think everybody oughtto be armed, not so we can hurt anybody. but just so we can explain to people, “leaveme alone. don’t take my stuff. don’t break into my house. don’t steal mycar. don’t come hurt my family. ok? thank you.” (laughter) i probably waited too long. i didn’t startmy kids shooting until they were about 3. i probably should have started at about 2,you know? here’s the logic they use to justify abortion.

they’re going to say, “well, it’s not human.”oh, brother. you’re either dumb or you’re lying. it’s human at conception. they’re going tosay, “well, it’s not viable. it can’t live on its own.” you’re not viable yourself stark naked onthe north pole, you know? it can’t live on its own? i know kids that are 25 who still come borrowmoney from dad! (laughter) “hey dad, can i borrow some money?” “you oughtto be able to live on your own by now, son.” they’re going to say, “the child may be unwanted.”

there are kids that are already born thatare unwanted. my parents moved 4 times when i was growingup, but i found them every time. (laughter) by the way, there are probably 5 people inthis room that have had an abortion. now, you listen carefully. god loves you.he can forgive you. it’s not the unpardonable sin. god can use you in a powerful way. but don’tyou go through life justifying it. don’t say, “it was okay.” no, it wasn’t okay.it was murder. so confess it, forsake it, get right withgod, and go serve god with your life. half the bible was written by murderers, okay?you’re in good company.

they’re going to say, “well, the child maybe unwanted.” a lot of people are unwanted. year after year, the number of people waitingto adopt is about equal to the number of abortions. the babies are not unwanted. they’re goingto say, “well, the child may be a financial burden.” show me a kid that’s not. anybody got a kidthat’s not a financial burden? they’re going to say, “it may be from rapeor incest.” well, then you kill the rapist, not the baby. execute the rapist and adopt out the baby.it’s not that complicated. hey, did you know, it’s illegal to shoot deerat night with spotlights in just about every

state. is it illegal in tennessee to shoot deer atnight with spotlights? you’ve got to give them a sporting chance,right? let’s give the baby a sporting chance. pass a law in tennessee that says if a ladygoes to have an abortion, the nurse will have a jar of marbles. and we’re going to have a lottery. one marblefor baby, one for mother, and one for father. and one for doctor, and one for governor.and let’s put several in there for the past president. and let’s really have a choice. you know,if he’s not alive, why is he growing?

if he’s not a human being, what kind of beingis he anyway, huh? she says, “honk, if you’re pro-choice.” it’seasy for her to be pro-choice. she’s already been born. i don’t know if you ever thought about this,but did you know everybody that ever voted for abortion has already beenborn? think that one through. they say, “well, abortion is legal.” thatdoesn’t make it right. in 1936, the german supreme court declaredthat jews in germany - are not persons. that opened the way to allow hitler to killthe jews. at least six million jews were killed! i have read lots of books about hitler. i’vebeen to germany a couple of times.

hitler said, “i have the right to exterminatean inferior race that breed like the vermin.” hitler thought the jews were an inferior species. he said, “the germans are the superior racethat deserve to rule the world.” hitler was killing the jews to make more livingspace for the germans. he sought to make the practices of germanyconform to the theory of evolution. hitler said, “if you want these criminals,i’ll send them to you on luxury ships.” you know, in 1938, the jews could have beensaved. but america refused to take them. every country but sweden refused to take thejews. hitler’s book and his mind were captivatedby evolutionary thinking probably since he

was a boy. evolutionary ideas lie at the basis of allthat is worst in his book, “mein kampf.” hitler thought it was the duty of the strongto trample the weak. in his book, hitler said, “nature does notdesire the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending ofa higher with a lower race.” who’s the higher race, adolph? he kept talking about the mingling of aryanblood all through his book. he talked about aryan races, lower peoples.well, i found hitler’s hit list.

hitler thought that blond-haired, blue-eyednorwegians were close to pure aryan. did you get all that? the blond-haired, blue-eyednorwegian “yah, sure, you betcha (bet you).” he thought the germans are mostly aryan. themediterraneans are slightly arian. the slavics are half-arian, and half-ape.orientals are slightly ape. black africans are mostly ape. and jews areclose to pure ape. hitler killed the jews to speed up the evolutionprocess. let’s eliminate the inferiors. anybody know where the olympics were heldin 1936? berlin. anybody know who won the most gold medals?jesse owens, a black american athlete. hitler was so angry, he said it’s not fairto make my men race against this animal.

hitler said, “i regard christianity as themost fatal seductive lie that ever existed.” well, that’s because he thought biologicalevolution would be a weapon against religion because the bible teachesall nations are of one blood. and if you think you are superior to somebodybecause of the color of your skin: 1. you’re wrong. 2. you’re stupid. 3. you’renot right with god. we cover more on the races, and there’s nosuch thing as races, it’s just skin colors, on video #7. i stood in the courtroom in nuremberg wherethey held the trial years ago. those guys on trial said, “we did nothingillegal. we were just obeying orders.”

yeah, and they were found guilty anyway, weren’tthey? see, there’s a higher law than germany’s law.it’s called god’s law. now, the supreme court in america in 1973said, “the word ‘person’ does not include the unborn.” that’s the decision that opened the way nowfor 45 million babies to be killed in america. that is 1,000 million, i.e. a billion worldwide. on september 11, 2001, 3000 americans werekilled by terrorists. we spent billions of dollars trying to huntthem down and kill them, right? you know what else happened september 11,2001?

forty-five hundred americans were killed byabortionists; 50% more deaths, but nobody said a word. the next day, it happened again. we’ve hada september 11 tragedy every day ever since. have we gone nuts? margaret sanger starteda group called “planned parenthood” to eliminate the “inferior species.” she wanted to wipe out the blacks, the jews,and the orientals. she thought they were human weeds. we could spend all day on margaret sanger. but just like hitler said, “the jews are aparasite in the body of nations,”

margaret sanger said, “the unborn child isa parasite in the woman’s body.” no, it’s a child. it’s a baby. we could spendall day on margaret sanger. we’re not going to take time for that now.this is a planned parenthood document from 1952. they said, “your questions answered aboutbirth control.” what is birth control? is it an abortion? they said, “oh, definitelynot. an abortion requires an operation. it kills the life of a baby after it has begun.”well, you bunch of hypocrites at planned parenthood! now, they’re the biggest funder of abortionsin the country. proverbs 6:16-17 “these six things doth thelord hate: hands that shed innocent blood.”

god hates this. deuteronomy 27:25 “cursedbe ye that takes reward to slay an innocent person, and all the peopleshall say amen.” the textbooks are going to tell you kids thatyou have an appendix that is vestigial. you don’t need it anymore. that’s a lie. youneed your appendix. the appendix is actually a part of your immunesystem. lie number 13. here’s an article on the web from universityof chicago, “ask a scientist.” nancy writes in and says, “what is the functionof the appendix in a human before it is taken out through surgery?” thislady writes back and says, “the appendix has no known function.” she’sway behind the times on that one.

she goes on to say, “it is believed that theappendix will gradually disappear in human beings as our diet do not includes cellulose no more.”(sic) “our diet do not includes cellulose no more?” the university of chicago. wow, good placeto get an education. not in english apparently. in the first place, this is not true. theappendix is part of your immune system. you need your appendix. the appendix activateskiller b cells like your thyroid activates killer t cells. it’s true you can live without your appendix.that’s true.

you could live without both your legs, andboth your arms, and both your eyes. and both your ears also. it doesn’t proveyou don’t need them. if you take your appendix out, you’ve gota much bigger chance of getting all sorts of diseases. this textbook says the whale has a vestigialpelvis. “many organisms retain traces of their evolutionaryhistory. for example, the whale retains pelvic and leg bones asuseless vestiges.” the “national center for science education”teaches, “bossie the cow evolved to blow-hole the whale.”the cow evolved to the whale.

and the evidence is the pelvis. “whales havea vestigial pelvis and leg bone that serve no purpose. they have hind limb bones that have no function.”“just imagine whales walking around. it’s true.” well, here are the bones they’re talking about,right there. just imagine the whale walking around. i have tried and tried to imagine, and i justcan’t do it. almost every type of whale has these bonesright there in the abdomen. they are not attached to the spine. that’scorrect.

this textbook says, “the whale’s pelvis islocated far from the vertebra and has no apparent function. the whale’s pelvis is evidence of its evolutionfrom four-legged land-dwelling mammals.” this is lie number14. those little bones are anchor points thatspecial muscles attach to that allow the whales to reproduce. whales are kind of big, you know, and withoutthose special muscles and those special bones, they can’t get more baby whales. so eitherthese guys are ignorant about their whale anatomy

or they’re lying to your kids trying to spreadtheir theory. but it’s not true that those are vestigial. there are no vestigial organs. and if therewere, think about it. that would be the opposite of evolution. that’slosing, not gaining. how’s that going to help? you lose everything - until you have it all?we could spend 2 days on whale evolution. every one of them, including ambulocetus andpakicetus have all been proven baloney. they can’t be intermediate species for whales. the authors were certain the feet were enormouseven though nothing was found. basilosaurus could not possibly have beenancestral to any of the modern whales.

pakicetus was made from 1 small piece of jaw,a small piece of a skull, and a few teeth. you find a little bit of jaw, a little bitof skull, a couple of teeth, and you know that it’s half-whale, half-somethingon land? that’s kind of a stretch, don’t you think? we’ll cover more on that later, but there’sall kinds of stuff on our website about this. i’ve got in my museum, a 15-1/2 foot (5 meters)python snake skin. if you look at the south end of that snakeskin,it’s got a couple of claws attached to a little 2-inch bone going upinside the snake’s body. we’ve got it in our museum.

the textbook says, “see, boys and girls? thisis a vestigial structure. the boa and the python have these little tinyclaws. do whales or snakes have back legs? you can see that they don’t. yet, both animalshave vestigial hip bones and leg bones where legs may once have existed.” this isa lie. this textbook says, “they have reduced hindlegs, rudimentary hind legs of a python snake.” you’ve got to be kidding. those little clawsare used in mating. okay? the snake doesn’t have any arms, and he can’ttalk and say, “uh, scoot over, honey.” okay? this has nothing whatsoever to do with walkingon land. it has to do with getting baby snakes. so once again, somebody is real dumb abouttheir snake anatomy

or they’re lying to your kid trying to spreadtheir theory. this textbook shows the coccyx, the humantailbone, in a “discover” magazine. and it says, “that’s all that’s left of thetail that most mammals still use. humans have a tailbone that is of no apparentuse.” i was in a debate in huntsville, alabama,against the president of the north alabama atheist association, and he got up in front of god and everybodyand said, “folks, i’ve got proof for evolution. humanshave a tailbone they no longer need.” i said, “mr. patterson, i taught biology andanatomy.

i happen to know there are 9 little musclesthat attach to the tailbone without which you cannot perform some valuablefunctions.” i won’t tell you what they all are, but trustme, you need those muscles. i said, “now, if you think the tailbone isvestigial, i, kent hovind, will pay to have yours removed. bend over.” (laughter) “critical thinking,”this book says, 2005 edition. “at the end of your backbone is a coccyx,a few small bones that are fused together. could the human coccyx be a vestigial structureor is it the start of a newly evolving structure?” that’s thinking critically? they give thekids 2 answers, 2 options, both of which are

wrong. there’s a third option, you know. maybe it’sfine just like it is. notice they don’t give that as an option,do they? maybe it was designed to support your colonand support your lower back for posture when you sit. and for 5 or 6 other things you can read aboutin “gray’s anatomy” book. they say, “aren’t babies born with tails oncein a while?” no. “well, that baby’s got a tail right there.” no, he doesn’t. it’s not a tail. it’s justfatty tissue. there is no bone, no muscle,

no cartilage. it’s not even lined up with the spine. ithas to do with the way the baby develops inside the mother. there’s fat around the nervous system to protectit until the bone grows around it. generally, the fat is reabsorbed into thesystem as the baby grows and develops bone. but in extremely rare occasions, the fat isexcluded outside the body like a big wart. so what you do, you cut it off, sew it up,put a diaper on the kid, and send him home. it’s just like a wart, that’s all it is. cutit off. it’s not a tail. this one says, “the coccyx is a small boneat the end of the human vertebral column.

it has no present function and is thoughtto be the remainder of bones that once occupied the long tail of a tree-livingancestor.” they told me when i was a kid, that humansused to have a tail but he lost it because he didn’t need it. i thought, “didn’t need it?” have you everthought how handy a tail would be? have you ever come to the door with two sacksof groceries? now wouldn’t that be nice to be able to grabthat door and walk right in there? you could drive down the highway and holdthat can of coke and tune the radio knob all at the same time.

(laughter) lost it because we didn’t needit! that’s lie number 15. everything used as evidence for evolutionhas been proven wrong. if real evidence exists, i’d like to see it.we’ll pay a quarter of a million dollars for real proof for evolution. but don’t lie to me. i think you ought todemand that your school board cut out pages with lies on them. don’t put up with that stuff. i was speakingat the university of west florida, and one biology teacher said, “hovind, i don’t think we should deface textbooks.”i said, “what do you mean?”

he said, “well, tonight, you said we shouldcut out the pages with this stuff on it. we shouldn’t deface the textbooks.” i said,“well, sir, suppose you were teaching math and you found a book that said 2 plus 2 equals5. what would you tell your students to do?” he said, “i would tell them to mark out thewrong answer and write in the right answer.” “ohhh, you would deface a textbook?” i said,“now, sir, you teach biology, don’t you?” he said, “yes, i do.” i said, “well, supposeyou found one of your textbooks that taught the embryo has gill slits, or the snake hasa vestigial pelvis, or all of the other stuff i covered tonight. are you going to tell your kids to tear thatpage out?” he said, “oh, no, no.”

i said, “would you tell them to mark it outand then write something in the column that it’s not correct?” he said, “no, no, no.” i said, “would youat least put a warning sticker in the front cover that said, ‘hey kids, the information on page85 is wrong?’ would you at least warn them?” he said, “oh no, no.” i said, “you would correcta math book, but you won’t correct a biology book?” i said, “you, sir, are a hypocrite, and thefolks in this county need to help you get a different job picking peaches or changingtires.

but you’ve got no business taking our taxdollars to lie to these kids in your class. we’re paying for this school. why don’t yoube respectful and resign or quit lying to the kids?” he said, “hovind, you don’t have much tact.”oh, i made full contact with that guy, that’s for sure. evolution is unproved and unprovable. theybelieve it because the only alternative is special creation. they just don’t want to believe this. theydon’t want to believe in creation. and they’re willing to believe a lie ratherthan believe the truth, so they can support

their wicked lifestyles. psalm 94 says, “he that formed the eye, shallhe not see?” god formed the eye. eyeballs are incredibly complicated. charlesdarwin said, “to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selectionseems, i fear to confess, absurd.” but then he goes on for 3 or 4 pages and sayshow he thinks it happened anyway. your eyeball is amazing. at the back of youreye, there are 137 million light-sensitive cells in 1 square inch. it’s called your retina, and all of them arewired straight to the brain. how would you like to hook up 137 millionelectrical connections in 1 square inch?

my heavenly father did. he’s pretty smart,isn’t he? now, i debated a particular atheist one time,and he said, “hovind, the eye is an example for evolution because it’s poorly designed.”i said, “what on earth are you talking about?” he said, “well, the light comes into youreye and then it goes through blood vessels in front of the retina.” he said, “that’s wired backwards.” he said, “the octopus has a much better eyebecause their blood vessels are behind the retina.” i said, “sir, let me just explain somethingto you, ok?” i said, “we live in the air.”

now air is a pretty poor insulator for uvlight. so your body is designed with the blood vesselsin front of the retina. that’s your body’s last defense against ultravioletlight. now, an octopus lives in the water. water blocks uv light. so they don’t needtheir blood vessels in front. see, we’re designed for living in air. andthey’re designed for living in water. now if you want to swap eyes with an octopus,you just go ahead, sir, but you’re going to be blind in a few days. because they don’t the have the blood vesselsin front to block the uv light. what a dumb evidence for evolution.

what they’re trying to say is “well, god wouldn’tdo it this way, so it must have evolved.” well, that’s a silly argument for evolution.maybe you just don’t understand why it was designed that way. man’s understanding of the human body is likeputting a 5-year-old kid under the hood of your car and saying, “hey, kid, take out whatever thisthing doesn’t need.” they don’t know what any of it does. you could take it all out, right? you know,your eyeball is amazing. it would take a minimum of 100 years of craycomputer time to simulate what takes place

in your eye many times every second. eyeballsare amazing. but this textbook says, “the complex structureof the human eye may be the product of millions of years of evolution.” why doesn’tgod get the glory for what he did? this textbook shows the kids a bird eye anda reptile eye. and it says right up here, “boys and girls,you can better understand how the eye might have evolved if you picture a series of changes.” you haveto imagine how it happened. just image the eye changing. that’s not science. imagining how it happened.where’s the evidence? see, evolution only

takes place in the imagination. it never takesplace in reality. they’re lying to you. lie number 16. psalms 94:9 “...he that formed the eye, shallhe not see?” science deals with things that we can observeand study and test. you don’t observe anything about evolution. if you have something that’s designed likean eyeball, it demands a designer. a painting is proof there was a painter evenif you never see the guy. a building is proof there was a builder, anda watch is proof there was a watchmaker. and creation is proof there was a creator.see, design simply demands a designer. period.

romans 1:20-22 “the invisible things thatcame from the creation of the world are clearly seen. they are without excuse,” the bible says.there is no excuse. the psalmist said, psalm 8:3-4 “when i considerthe heavens.” you know, god knows that the study of realscience will draw us to him. satan knows that too. so satan has worked really hard in the fieldof science to make sure it pushes people away from god. and we need some good godly science teachersto get involved in the school system and turn

this thing around. and by the way, we can prove the existenceof god by the impossibility of the contrary. it’s impossible that there not be a designer.it’s just not possible. there had to be a designer. i like to show evolutionists this pictureof mount rushmore. i say, “guys, here we have, as far as i know,the world’s largest rock group.” (laughter) “do you know of a bigger ‘rock group?’ i’dlike to see it, okay?” i’ll say, “do you think that george washington’sface could have appeared on this rock by chance?” they say, “no, it was designed by a guy namedborglum. it took him a long time to build

it.” ok, very good. now, let me ask you anotherquestion. you say there is no way this face could appearon the rock by chance. you don’t think wind could have done that: abrasion, exfoliation, thermalexpansion of the rocks nothing? “nope, nope, it happened by design.”they reply. ok, now let me ask you this question. you think george washington himself - with50 trillion cells in his body and all of his complex systems - happened by chance? they’ll say, “yeah.” nowwait, wait, wait. you don’t think a simple image of his facecould appear on a rock by chance.

but you do think his whole complex anatomycould happen by chance? are you dumb in any other area or is thatthe only one? you know? then, they tell kids that plants are adaptedto their environment. adapted? yes, boys and girls, fish gills are an adaptationto living in water. oh well, how did they live before they adaptedthe gills, hmm? well, you see, mr. hovind, for millions ofyears, they all died, none of them lived until they adapted the gills. ohhh, i see. why don’t they say it’s a designfeature? see, they avoid using the word “designed”because then some kid’s going to say, “who’s

the designer?” the textbook says: adaptations for life onland. legs support the body’s weight as well asallow for movement from place to place. well, that’s true. that doesn’t prove theyadapted by themselves though. lungs. oh boy, the delicate structure of afish’s gills depends on water for support. on land, lungs carry out gas exchange. that’strue. that’s not a proof one changed into the other,though. they just make this mental imaginary connectionin the kids’ minds. i’ve got a casio databank watch. it holds300 phone numbers.

it’s a calculator, stopwatch, an alarm clock,and a countdown timer. it does not tell time. i have to look at it. but it’s a pretty amazingmachine. seventy bucks at walmart. i was in japan a couple of years ago, buti did not see the guy who makes the casio databank watch. i never saw him. do i have to see the guywho made it to believe he exists? hmmm. is it logical for me to stand here in tennesseeand say, “i believe there’s a watch designer in japanthat made this thing.” is that logical? even if i have never seen him? sure. wouldit be illogical for me to say, “i’ve never seen him so i don’t believe heexists.” that would be totally dumb, wouldn’t

it? and you don’t have to see the creator to believehe exists, ok? evolutionists argue against design, usingarguments that they designed. hmmm, think about that one. here’s a great book talking about the complexityof living things at a micro-scale. we sell the book at our website. michael behewrote this in his book, “darwin’s black box.” he spends a whole chapter describing the hairon a bacteria. that hair is so complicated. it’s attached to a little tiny motor. themotor is so tiny that 8 million of them would fit

in the cross-section of a human hair, butthe motor turns at 100,000 rpms (revolutions per minute)! let’s see you build a motor like that. prettyamazing. and as things get smaller, the world they live in feels more sticky tothem, the viscosity of the fluid seems greater. so, a bacteria swimming through water is aboutlike a person swimming through peanut butter. and that little motor is so powerful and turnsso fast, that bacteria can swim about like a person going 60 miles an hourthrough peanut butter. we’ve got a little model of it in our museumif you want to come down and see how they work.

the textbook says, “humans probably evolvedfrom bacteria more than 4 billion years ago.” what? if they can swim through peanut butter at60 miles an hour, we should sign them up for the olympics. we evolved from them? huh, we’re gettingworse, not better. that’s lie number 17. nothing this small and complex could havehappened by chance. this is a great book that we sell in our bookstore,“exploding the big bang,” just simple illustrations. could a box evolve? could an ink pen evolve?could a paper clip evolve? it just goes through a bunch of simple thingsand shows it just can’t happen.

then, they talk about the origin of life.yes, boys and girls, how living things started from non-living matter. this is pure baloney how they teach this inthe books. we’re going to cover that after a quick break. we’ll cover a few more lies in the textbooksand then tell you what you can do about it. there are some practical steps to fix theproblem right after the break. in the last 2 sessions, we’ve covered over15 lies found in typical modern textbooks. i taught high school science for 15 years.and i’m not against science. i’m not against schools.

i’m also not against teachers, but i’m againstlies. just don’t lie to the kids. the bible says in the book of proverbs 19:27“cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causes theeto err from the words of knowledge.” don’t listen to things that are simply nottrue. get the lies out of the books. the bible says (revelation 4:10-11) god createdall things, and it says, acts 7:49 “heaven is my throne and earth ismy footstool. hath not my hand made all these things?” god made everything. the bible says that godformed the entire world. the bible says (genesis 1:21) “god createdgreat whales and every living thing.”

now, the textbooks in school are going toteach your kids that every living thing happened by itself. they’re not going to teach them god createdevery living thing, that’s for sure. here’s a textbook that says, “the historyof life on earth began about 3.5 billion years how this occurred has been and will continueto be a topic for inquiry.” let me give you the hovind translation ofwhat they just said. what they just said is: “it’s okay to inquirehow it evolved. it is not okay to inquire if it evolved.” hey, kids, you’re allowed to research intohow did evolution happen.

and if some kid says, “well, maybe it didn’thappen at all.” “oh, shut up kid, you’re out of my class!” the only way you can research it is how didit happen. you cannot even ask the question did it happen.that’s not education. that’s indoctrination. okay? i’m sick andtired of paying for that stuff. “nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into thefirst living cell.” paul davies said. nobody has a clue how life got started fromnon-living material by itself. there is not even a good theory how it couldhappen.

but the textbooks are going to teach yourkids that “it just happened.” they just tell them, “hey, it happened.” and you can’t even consider the option thatmaybe god made it. here’s what happened. back in the 1950s, two researchers, millerand urey, decided to try to figure out how life evolved. so they took a mixture of chemicals and ranthem through these tubes and they tried to create life in the laboratory. the experiment has been duplicated many, manytimes and always been a failure. and it always created more problems for theevolutionists.

this textbook says, “although he never didprove how life originated, he did add evidence to the theory that lifecould have started by itself.” that is a lie. all they did was create problems for the ideathat life could have started by itself. this one says, “swirling in the waters ofthe oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals. progress from a complex chemical soup to aliving organism is very slow.” boy, it sure is. it doesn’t even happen. that’show slow it is. there are several different articles thatsay life came from clay. yep, got some clay together and, poof, itcame alive on the bottom of the ocean.

they did not address the origin of life indarwin’s book. and it’s never been figured out since howlife could have started. what miller and urey did was they took these4 chemicals and put them in these glass tubes. and they made them circulate around and triedto create life in the laboratory. this textbook says, “many important eventsoccurred during the archean era. the most important of which was the evolutionof life. progress from complex molecules to the simplestliving organism was a very long process.” i guess so. if you give it billions of years,somehow it looks more reasonable, you know? this one says, “the first living cells emergedbetween 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago.

there is no record of the event.” but you’dbetter believe it, and you’re going to be tested on it. “the first self-replicating systems must haveemerged in this organic soup.” so great-great-great-great-grandpa was soup. this is one of the lies in the textbooks youkids have to face. lie number 18. nobody has a clue how life could have gottenstarted by non-living chemicals. even haeckel confessed (he’s the guy we talkedabout in the last session that made up the idea that the embryo hasgill slits, so that they can justify abortion). haeckel claimed that spontaneous generationmust be true.

not because it had been proven in the laboratory. but because otherwise it would be necessaryto believe in a creator. well, ernst, i’m sorry, but that’s just theway it goes. there’s a creator - whether you like it or not. so have they really produced life in the laboratory? oh, they haven’t even come close. here’s whatthey did. they took 4 gases: they took methane, ammonia,water vapor and hydrogen. they ran them through these tubes, and ranit through a spark chamber which is supposed to simulate lightning, boom!

and they said, “see, we’re going to put themtogether and make life in the laboratory.” at the bottom of the flask, they got thisred goo, and they kept draining the goo off. because if it went through the spark again,that would destroy it. so they had to make the goo, but then to saveit from the next spark. they said in the textbook here, “it was richin amino acids,” this red goo was. well, that’s simply a lie. they didn’t comeclose to making life. the problem is, they had a reducing atmosphere.in other words, he excluded oxygen. you can look at his 4 gases. there’s no oxygenin there. he knew if he had oxygen in there, it wouldoxidize whatever chemicals tried to combine.

you know, you cut a banana open, lay it onthe table, it turns brown. it oxidizes. if you don’t paint your car, the metal quicklyoxidizes. it rusts. well, living cells will oxidize quickly inthe presence of oxygen, so he didn’t put any oxygen in there. that creates a serious problem. because if you have oxygen, you cannot getlife to come from non-living chemicals. the problem is, ozone is made from oxygen.and ozone blocks uv light. and uv light destroys ammonia. and ammoniais one of the 4 gases he’s using. so you cannot get life to evolve with oxygen,and you cannot get life to evolve without

oxygen. because if you don’t have oxygen, you don’thave ozone and now your ammonia gets destroyed. it’s just not going to work either way. andthe earth has always had oxygen, even more than today. this guy said, “what evidence is there fora primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? the answer is there is no evidence for itbut much against it.” “in general, we find no evidence in the sedimentarydistribution of carbon, sulfur, uranium, etc., of an oxygen-free atmosphere ever existingon the earth.”

if somebody tells you the early earth hada “reducing atmosphere,” you tell them kent hovind said they’re confused or they’redeliberately lying, because it’s not true. the earth has always had oxygen. this articlesays, “it’s suggested from the earliest dated rocksthat 3.7 billion years ago, earth had an oxygenic atmosphere.” they have always known the earth had oxygen,even more than we have today. we cover that in seminar part 2 how the earlyearth probably had even more oxygen. it made them live longer. this textbook says,“there was no oxygen on the earth.” that is a lie. and then it says, “the rocksabsorbed it.” (laughter) hello?

how can they absorb it if it wasn’t there?well, think about it. the second problem they had with the millerexperiment, they filtered out the product. that is notrealistic for nature. they saved the red goo from getting sparkedthe second time, because that would have destroyed it. what they actually made in this experimentwas 85% tar and 13% carboxylic acid. now, both of those are poisonous to life.if you make a mixture that’s 98% poisonous to the other 2%, i don’t think it’s logical to say you’ve succeededin creating anything that’s going to help

make life. there are other problems too. he made mostlyonly two amino acids. there are 20 different ones required to makelife; 20 different amino acids. now, these amino acids are kind of like lettersof the alphabet. you have to have 26 letters in the englishalphabet to make all the words that we have. well, you have to have 20 different aminoacids to make all the proteins that your body has. with those 20 different amino acids, yourbody can build lots of different kinds of proteins.

this is kind of like you can make a lot ofdifferent words with the same 26 letters. what he actually made was like 2 of the lettersof the alphabet by combining these gases. this creates a real problem since half ofthem were left-handed and half of them were right-handed. what he actually made was simple amino acids,only 2 types, and half of them were backwards. i mean, if i drop letters of the alphabet,there’s a 50/50 chance some of them are going to land upside-down. they don’t do any good. you have to have themall facing the right way. the smallest proteins we know of have about70-100 amino acids; all of them facing the

right way. this greatly compounds the problem, ok? dnaand rna are all right-handed. all other proteins are left-handed. “thisis a very puzzling fact that all proteins that have been investigated from animals, plants, and higher organismsand from simple organisms, bacteria, molds, and even viruses are made of left-handed aminoacids.” they’re all that way. so he’s really got a problem since half ofhis letters were backwards. and there are hundreds of amino acids requiredto combine in just the right way to make a protein.

and they unbind in water faster than theybond, and they claim this all happened in the oceans? well, the oceans are completely full of waterall the way to the bottom. also brownian motion is going to drive themapart. it’s not going to put them together. one of the lies in the textbooks is that - theymade life in the laboratory. all they’ve done, in every experiment, hasmade the problem worse for the evolutionists. these spontaneous generations do not occurspontaneously in water. life is not going to get started in that way. there is a whole lot more in the book iconsof evolution if you want a lot more on the

subject to go down deep. but they got this weird idea in their headthat all they have to do is get all the right chemicals together andadd energy, and it will make life. ok, well, let’s do an experiment. let’s puta frog in a blender and turn it on. in a matter of moments, you will have frog-nog.(laughter) and you will have all of the chemicals requiredto make one frog in the blender, right? now, we’re going to add energy. you can turnit on puree for 30 minutes. you can nuke it, microwave it, zap it withjumper cables. i don’t care what you do, drop a hand grenadein there, add all the energy you want.

how long will it take to reassemble the frog?it will never happen. see, just getting the chemicals together isn’tthe problem. you go to the mortuary. you’ve got a dead body laying there, you’vegot all the chemicals required for life right there in one spot. bring it back to life. life is something different. i don’t think science has ever defined thatclearly. but they talk about how we all came from thisearly life form. once this first life form got started, thesingle cell, then it evolved into everything else.

like this textbook shows the kid that a bacteriaslowly evolved to a human. these trees of life are absolute propaganda.there is no evidence for any of these. even mary leakey said, “those trees of lifewith the branches of our ancestors, that’s a lot of nonsense.” stephen gould said, “the evolutionary treesthat adorn our textbooks are not the evidence of fossils.” that’s for sure. there is no evidence thatany animal is related to any other kind of animal. but this textbook says, “all the many formsof life on earth today are descended

from a common ancestor found in a populationof primitive unicellular organisms.” there’s no such thing as a primitive unicellularorganism. if it’s alive, it’s complicated. we’ll cover more on that in a minute. andthen it says, “no traces of those events remain.” what they do is they tell the kids, “okaykids, the mammals, the birds, and the crocodileshave a common ancestor.” they draw these trees in the books, and theylook so pretty. and the kid goes, “wow, they’ve got proof.i saw it in my book.” no, they’ve got a picture in your book. everythinginside that circle is pure religious speculation. they think it happened, they hope it happened,but there is zero evidence for anything inside

that circle. it’s one of the lies you’re going to haveto face in your textbook. the bible says, “if you offend one of theselittle ones, you’d be better off with a millstone aboutyour neck” and go swimming. these folks teaching evolution are in serioustrouble when they stand before god. then, they tell them we come from a simpleprimitive unicellular organism. look, just because it’s smaller, it doesn’tmean it’s simpler. a paramecium is more complicated than a spaceshuttle. and you can put thousands of those into 1drop of water. smaller is not simpler.

that’s one of the lies in the textbooks. i’llshow you. here’s a microchip inside a paper clip. pretty small. not simple. this microchip isbeing held in the mouth of an ant. and that little microchip can process everyletter of the bible 200 times per second. smaller is not simpler. i’ll show you. let’s compare the brain of a honeybee to nasa’scray computer, at one time the world’s fastest computer. i think they’ve got a faster one now. thebrain of a honeybee is pretty small, the cray computer is huge.

we would all agree there’s a size difference,right? ok? now, the cray computer can do 6 billion calculationsper second. it was estimated that the honeybee’s brainis doing about a trillion calculations per second. that is a thousand billion. so that littlehoneybee brain is about 133 times faster than a cray computer. the cray uses many megawatts. it’s power-hungry.the honeybee uses 10 microwatts. did you know honeybees not only make honey,they fly on honey? that’s their energy source. and a honeybee can fly a million miles on1 gallon of honey.

how would you like a machine that gets a millionmiles per gallon? especially at today’s price of gas, right?fill up once, and you’re done for the rest of your life. the cray cost 48 million dollars. the honeybee’sbrain is pretty cheap. you splat them on your windshield all thetime, right? many people scramble when the cray breaksdown. nobody heals the honeybee, it is a self-healingcomputer. steve, you work on computers, how’d you likeone of those? something crashes, bzzz, reconfigures itself,fixes it all up, no problem.

the cray will weigh 2300 pounds. the honeybee’sbrain doesn’t weigh too much. so what should we conclude? let’s see, thesupercomputer is huge. it is slow. it is very inefficient. it ispower-hungry, and it had to be designed. we all know that, right? but yet, they turn around and look at thehoneybee and say, “well, that happened by chance.” uh, and the brain of a human is a wholemore complex than a honeybee, for heaven’s sake. your brain can hold more information thanthe entire british library. the human brain

is phenomenal! you have more computational power in bitsper second than the entire national telephone system. one brain surgeon estimated that there aremore connections in just one person’s brain than the entire electrical grid system ofthe united states. how many wires have been connected togetherin the united states? with every computer and inside every machineand inside every building, like zillions of them? one brain has more than that. one professortold me that he believed in evolution, and

i said, “well, sir, do you believe your brain is nothingbut 3 pounds of chemicals that got together by chance?” he said, “yeah.” i said, “then how can youtrust your thoughts and the conclusions you come to?” (laughter) maybe you’ve got a chemical inthere backwards! he did, by the way, several actually. then they tell the kids, “well, dna is prettytiny, but that proves evolution.” that’s what this textbook says. “we have evidenceof evolution from molecular biology.

darwin speculated all forms of life are related.this speculation has been verified.” they are lying to your kids. nothing aboutdna has helped with the evolution theory at all. dna, which stands for deoxyribonucleic acid,is the most complex molecule in the universe. the dna is an unbelievably complicated molecule;that little dna molecule. the average person has 50 trillion cells intheir body with 46 of those little molecules in each cell. 46 chromosome strands in each cell of yourbody. if you extracted all of it, it would onlyfill about 2 tablespoons.

but if you took those dna strands and unwoundthem, stretched them out, tied them together, one person’s dna would reach from earth tothe moon and back over a half-million times! those are a lot of round trips to the moon. they say the dna holds more information thanall computer programs ever written by man combined. ibm models the newest computers after dna. the quantity of information is so vast, wehave to invent new numbers to measure it. now there are: terabytes, petabytes, exabytes,zettabytes, and yottabytes. all the words uttered by everyone whoeverlived would amount to - 5 exabytes.

and the dna in your chromosome holds evenmore information than that. it is so unbelievably complex. if you typed out the code found in your dna,when you got done typing, you’d have enough books to fill grand canyon78 times. that’s the instructions to make - you. i’d say you’re pretty special. quite the listof instructions to make you! david said, “i will praise thee for i am fearfullyand wonderfully made.” and he didn’t have a microscope, and he couldfigure that out. you know, from conception to birth, the babyadds 15,000 cells per minute to its body.

each one is more complicated than a space-shuttle. how would you like to be in charge of thesupply end of supplying a factory that is producing 15,000 space-shuttles aminute? and it’s your job to make sure they have allthe nuts and bolts and screws and everything they need to put that thing together? some of you womenare saying, “boy, i did it. that’s hard too. sometimes they want pickles in the middleof the night, you know?” the husband may ask, “what are you buildingdown there anyway, huh?” the probability of one dna happening by chancehas been calculated to be 1 in 10 to the 119,000th

power. that’s a big number when you figure the entirevisible universe is about 10 to the 28th inches in diameter. dna has not proven anything that would helpthe evolution theory. it’s made the problem much, much, much worse. but, let’s just assume that the chromosomenumber means something and that, you know, it could evolve. ok, well then i did some research on this. i discovered that penicillin has 2 chromosomes.that one had to evolve first.

and then slowly over millions of years, theygot some more chromosomes because they’re complicated, you know, andturned into a fruit-fly. you can see the similarity there. it’s onlygot 8 chromosomes. and then very slowly, it evolved some morechromosomes and became either a tomato or a house-fly. it is very tough to tell the difference. they’reidentical twins, you know? and then very slowly over millions of years,it evolved into either a pea or a bee. you can see the similarity there. you know,pea, bee, very similar. it slowly became lettuce and then a carrot,and finally, when we got to 22 chromosomes,

triplets. the possum, the redwood tree, and the kidneybean all have 22 chromosomes. the average scientist cannot tell them apart.(laughter) “let’s see, which one is which here. okay,let’s see, tree, possum, bean, huh.” and we have 46 now, folks, and if we can justget 2 more - the next step of human evolution we’re going to become a tobacco plant. i knowsome already smell like it. sometimes i’ll get on the elevator, and i’llsay, “man, you’re evolving. you’re way ahead of me.” and it probably won’t happen in my lifetime,but we might get enough chromosomes someday

to be either a dog or a chicken. they’re twinstoo, you know. and then way down the road, you know, we’regoing to become a carp. they’ve got double the chromosomes we do.and someday, star date 349572, we’re going to become a fern. i was at a church one time, and this ladywalked up to me afterwards, and she said, “mr. hovind, i’m fern.” i shook her hand withthat hand right there. hey, how come the evolutionists are alwayscomparing things that fit their theory? why don’t they show us the things that don’tfit their theory? for example, let’s just say we’re going toexamine how things evolved based upon how

long they live. well, we could arrange animals by how longthey live.” and we’ll find out the hamster evolved first,slowly turned into a cat, and then a canary, and then a dog. and then a chimpanzee and an alligator, elephant,horse, turtle, and human. we made it, folks, we made it. let’s arrange the animals based on how longthey’re pregnant, their gestation period. well, in that case, the possum, only 13 days.how would you like that, ladies? only be pregnant for 13 days, not bad, huh?yeah, i’d have a bunch of kids then.

slowly evolved into a hamster, then a rat,then a rabbit, kangaroo, on down the list. and the elephant, at 640 days. they are thewinner. the most evolved creature on earth. oh really? you can see here the cat and the dog are identicaltwins, you know? maybe we should arrange them based on howmuch they weigh in their adult form. well, the shrew only weighs 4 grams. slowly,it became a mouse. and very slowly, slowly, over billions ofyears, it became a whale. well, the whale is the most evolved now. whydon’t they show us these charts, huh? and why is it that amphibians have 5 timesmore dna than mammals.

and some amoeba have 1000 times more dna? they don’t tell us these things because itdoesn’t fit their theory. it’s impossible to arrange in any sort ofevolutionary series based on just 1 little bit of fact. you’d better find all the facts. you findout that this evolution theory fails miserably. but they tell the kids, “we’re going to thinkcritically, boys and girls. they are 20 kinds of amino acids (that’s afact). explain how this fact supports the idea thatall life shares a common ancestor.” how’s a christian kid supposed to answer thatfor homework for monday? hmmm?

don’t you see a built-in assumption in thisquestion? that’s not learning to think critically. would the kid be allowed, teacher, to explainhow this fact that all lifeforms have 20 amino acids. would the kid be allowed to say, “maybe thatproves the intelligence of a common designer?” maybe god gave all the animals the same basic20 amino acids so that we don’t have to just eat each other,you know. i mean, if they’re all totally different,wildly different kinds, then we could only eat other humans. but see, god made it this way so the browncow can eat the green grass and give the white

milk and make the yellow butter, and i eat it andget the blond hair. um-hmm. maybe that’s why there’s all the same basicbuilding blocks. one of the lies they face in the textbooksis this idea that all these similarities prove a common ancestor. well, let’s pretend that it does, okay? thistextbook says, “humans and orangutans are 96% similar, provinga common ancestor 15 million years ago.” i don’t think so. humans and chimps have thousandsof differences, thousands of differences. “overall,” this guy says, “the genetic differenceis only 1.6%.”

oh, that’s what they used to think, but that’sa lie. barney maddox was leading genome researcheron this project, and he said, “the genetic difference between human andchimpanzee is at least 1.6%. that doesn’t sound like much, but calculatedout, that’s a gap of 48 million nucleotides. and a change of only 3 nucleotides is fatalto an animal.” he said it’s not going to happen. that’s when they thought the difference was1.6%. it’s still too big of a gap. later they found out, oh, actually, it’s a95% similarity, which is 5% difference. and just recently, they said, “oh, no, wow,look at this. it’s 7.7% difference.” the more we study about this, the worse theproblem gets for the evolutionists.

actually, it’s becoming worse by the day. thisresult is based on only 1 million dna bases out of 3 billion. they’ve only analyzed 1/3000th of the humandna code. a very small percent has actually been analyzed. “french and american scientists have mappedchromosome 14 the longest sequence to date. it is the site of more than 60 disease genes. the feat enlisted nearly 100 researchers andmarks the fourth of the 24 human chromosomes mapped so far.” if somebody tells you they have mapped theentire human genome,

you tell them kent hovind said they are mistakenor they are lying. they’ve only mapped a small percentage. andit says, “the french national sequencing center said, ‘the chromosome is comprised of more than87 million pairs of dna, all of which have been sequenced so the chromosome’smap includes no gaps. this is the longest piece of contiguous dnasequenced.’” eighty-seven million pairs - a fraction ofthe total 3 billion pairs found in the human genome. they still don’t know how much there is inthere, and it’s already a 7.7% difference.

this researcher said, “the human genome is littered with up to 20,000pseudogenes. that proves evolution.” i get this in debates all the time. they’llsay, “what about the pseudogenes?” i’ll say, “there’s no such thing.” they’llsay, “well, yeah, there is. there are thousands of pseudogenes (whichmeans a false gene, it doesn’t do anything).” oh no, those pseudogenes serve several purposes. number 1, they serve as decoys to draw poisonsaway from the real ones. number 2, they serve as backup mechanisms.it’s like your computer has an automatic backup, if a piece of the memory gets destroyed, anotherone of those “pseudogenes” jumps right in

and takes over. they took out some of the pseudogenes to seewhat would happen. they said, “well, the mouse doesn’t need thesethings. let’s take them out.” and there’s how they turned out. they weredeformed terribly. there’s no such thing as a pseudogene. “the pseudogene may function as a decoy tolure away destructive enzymes.” - discover magazine of 2003. we could spend all day on dna sequencing,but you know. it could be we have similar dna to other animalsbecause we have the same designer.

you know, similar bridges would have similarblueprints, wouldn’t they? similar cars would have similar instructionson how to build them, how to make them. man has a pretty good understanding of howcars work. my daddy started us boys off working on carswhen we were, you know, 7 years old. i’ve had 128 cars, i believe. i rebuilt themotors, the transmissions, the drive shafts, the differentials, the high-speed valves andthe muffler bearings. i have a pretty good understanding of howcars work. but understanding the operation of a car doesnot explain the origin of the car. big difference, see?

let’s suppose your son turns 16. all of mykids did a few years ago. your son comes up and says, “hey, dad, i gotmy license.” “let me see that thing, son. let me see your license, come on. wow, son,that’s a lousy picture. it is a good likeness though.” he says, “hey dad, can i drive the car?” “well,son, your mom and i knew this day was coming. the car is a very complicated machine. did you know there are 3000 bolts requiredto hold a car together and 1 nut can scatter it all over the highway? we don’t think you’re ready for the wholecar, son. we’re going to let you slowly evolve

into the car. this year, we’re going to give you 10%, nextyear maybe just a little more.” hey, what good is 10% of a car? that’s whatyou put in a junkyard. how many things have to be right on a carto make it work? like thousands of things, hmm? how many things would have to be wrong tomake it stop working? any one of many thousands of things like nothaving the keys, you know, not having any gas in it.. take your distributor cap off and run a pencilaround the inside and put it back on.

boy, they’ll never find that one. take a spark plug wire off, put a doorbellwire in there, shove it back down, feed the doorbell wire through the firewalland weave it through the fabric of the front seat. do that when they’re going on their honeymoon,you know? get in the car, and wow, let’s go, honey. bam! whoa, what was that? there’s a thousandthings that make your car quit running. there are probably 10,000 ways to stop a carfrom running. shove a potato in the exhaust pipe, you know,and watch what happens.

i don’t want to give you any more ideas. (laughter) there are thousands of differences betweenhumans and chimpanzees. but if you think a percentage of similarityproves a relationship, let me show you the research i’ve been doing. i discovered clouds are 100% water. watermelonsare 97%. it’s only 3% difference. that proves they’re related. jellyfish are98% - the missing link! and so are snow-cones, um-hmm, yeah, therewe go, we’ve got us a proof. then, they tell them fossils prove evolution.i say, “guys, you’ve got to be kidding!” this textbook says, “evidence of evolutionfrom the fossil record.” oh no, don’t give

me that. that’s a lie. there is no fossil record. there’sa bunch of bones in the dirt. it’s not a record. you’re putting your interpretation on thosebones you’re digging out of the dirt. there is no “fossil record.” this textbooksays, “evolution is a fact. the fossil record provides some of the strongestevidence that species evolved over time.” this is silly. there is no fossil record.you don’t look back into time. you look at a bunch of bones you dug out ofthe dirt, and you put your interpretation on them. fossils only exist in the present. they don’texist in the past.

i mean, you’re digging them up, and it’s 2009. you can’t say, “wow, this fossil is 40 millionyears old!” you don’t know that. all we do is put our interpretation on thefossils, but the kids are taught, “fossils contribute to our understanding ofevolution.” kids, keep in mind, dead animals do not reproduceor evolve. darwin said, “if my theory is true, numberless intermediatespecies ought to have been found in the fossil record.” well, i’m sorry. this guy said, “since darwin,many of these links have been found.” oh, they are lying to you. no missing linkshave been found.

even david raup, who believes in evolution,says, “in the years after darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions.in general, these have not been found.” yet, the optimism has died hard, and somepure fantasy has crept into textbooks. oh, you’re kidding! fantasy in the textbooks?that’s a fancy word for: a lie. and we could spend 2 days on the fossil record. there is no fossil record, and there are gapsall over the place. every place where there ought to be something,they find nothing, no evidence for how the whale evolved or howthe birds evolved or how the flowering plants evolved.

no evidence whatsoever. if you find a fossilin the dirt, all you know is, it died. you couldn’t prove it had any kids. and yousure couldn’t prove it had different kids. and why would you think a bone in the dirtcan do something animals today cannot do? -which is to produce something other thantheir kind! luther sunderland wrote to major evolutionistsall over and said, “hey, where is the evidence for evolution?”they wrote back and said, “we don’t have it. somebody else has it.” he wrote to colin pattersonbecause patterson has access to the largest fossil collection in the world,the british museum of natural history. nobody in the world have more fossils thanthe british museum’s collection.

patterson wrote a book about evolution, buthe didn’t show any missing links. so sunderland wrote him a letter and said,“excuse me. why didn’t you show the missing links in yourbook? i’d like to see a picture of the missing link.” patterson wrote back and said, “i fully agree with your comments on the lackof evolutionary transitions in my book. if i knew of any, fossil or living, i would certainly have includedthem. i will lay it on the line. there is not one such fossil.” there are nomissing links. the whole chain is missing.

it’s not a link they’re looking for, folks.even stephen gould said, “the absence of fossil evidence is a naggingproblem for evolution.” yeah, it sure is. stephen gould died with a set of my videoson his shelf in his library. i hope he watched them. hopefully, he watched them and got saved. i don’t know. so, niles eldredge and stephengould have kind of “resurrected” the punctuated equilibrium idea that cameactually from richard goldschmidt. goldschmidt “the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.”they got so frustrated looking for missing links,

they couldn’t find any, they said, “well,this just proves evolution happened quickly.” oh, i see, yep. and this bird that hatchedfrom the reptile egg, uh, excuse me, who did it marry? don’t you have to have two in the same placeof the opposite sex? i mean, what if you get 2 males? and don’tthey have to be at the same time in history? what if one is born just 10 years before theother one? oh, just missed it. you’ve got to get them in the same place,of the opposite sex, at the same time, and they’ve got to be interested. you’ve gota whole bunch of problems, ok? serious problems. then, they tell the kids to think critically.which theory best describes the organism’s

evolution: gradualism or punctuated equilibria? lookwhat they do. “kid, which theory is the best explanation,slow evolution or fast evolution?” do you see how they’re giving the kids 2 options,both of which are false. which is correct, boys and girls, elephantsare orange or elephants are pink? uh-oh, man. “mom, what should i write for this one?” (laughter)“i don’t know, honey. go do your homework.” they’re neither one! do you realize how frustratingthis is for christian kids? they have go through public schools and havethis kind of stuff day after day after day.

it just wears at their faith. and they finallyjust start giving the evolution answers. and 75% of the kids from christian homes arebeing destroyed and losing their faith going through these public schools. that’snot thinking critically. this textbook says, “which is correct, boys and girls, did evolutionhappen gradually or in short leaps and punctuated equilibria?” they give them 2 options: evolution happenedslowly or evolution happened quickly. these guys are not capable of thinking outsidethe box. it didn’t happen at all. is that an option? but i guarantee you if a kid puts, “it didn’thappen at all”

on his test question, the teacher’s goingto count it wrong. i debated dr. pigliucci from knoxville, tn,ut knoxville, and i said, “dr. pigliucci, you’ve studied and taughtevolution of plants for 10 years. you’ve received $650,000 in grant money tostudy the evolution of plants. what’s the best evidence you know of for evolution?”that was my question. his answer was, “the evolution of whales.” i said, “just exactly what kind of plant isa whale anyway? hmm?” he said, “the hippo is evidence for evolutionbecause it’s in the process of adapting to an aquatic way of life.”

the hippo is proof for evolution because itlikes to go in the water? wow, i like to go in the water too. what’s that mean? (laughter) evolution isa shell game. everybody thinks that somebody else has theevidence. the biologist says, “oh, we don’t have it. the geologist has it.”the geologist says, “oh, we don’t have it. the anthropologist has it.” it’s a shell gamewith 1 major difference. you know the con game where they put the peadown there and try to get you confused, you know, which one has the pea. the difference is forevolution, there’s no pea under any of them!

nobody has the evidence for evolution! nobody.they’re all lying. they say, “what about horse evolution? yes,boys and girls, you see this? the 4-toed horse evolved to the 1-toed horse.”that’s a lie proven wrong 55 years ago. the hyrax is the so-called 4-toed horse. they’restill alive today in africa and turkey. it’s a little bitty critter. there’s one rightthere, a hyrax. they don’t tell you the early horse had 18pairs of ribs. the next one had 15. these animals are not even related. they justpicked some bones and put them in the order they wanted them. the next one had 19 and then back to 18. thishorse evolution theory was proven wrong a

long time ago. there’s a whole variety of horses today, bythe way, big ones and little ones. but back in 1950, g.g. simpson, a famous evolutionistsaid, “this horse evolution was unintentionally falsified. it’s not true. the evolution of the horsewas all wrong. it never happened in nature. horse evolution has not held up under closeexamination.” the whole idea was made up by othniel marsh back in 1874. he picked animals from all over the worldand put them in order the way he wanted it to happen.

he never found them in that order, ok? modernhorses are found in the same layers as the so-called “ancient horse.” the ancient horse is just an animal stillalive today in turkey and east africa. the ribs, toes and teeth are different. in south america, the fossils are in the reverseorder! that is a real problem. they’re never found in the order presentedin the textbooks. the tulsa zoo finally took out their displaybecause a friend of mine wrote them a letter and said, “hey, why do you have the horse evolutionon display?” i’ve got the letters here somewhere.

did you get those out, steve? they’re in thesuitcase, ok. you can come read those later. he wrote them a letter and said, “guys, yourhorse evolution thing was proven wrong like 50 years ago. you know, would you please remove the display?”and they said, “we don’t have the funding to remove it.” so he went to a sign shop and got a bid fora sign, 60 bucks or something, that says, the sign would say, “we will take down this display as soon aswe receive the funding because the display is not accurate.”

he went into the curator at the zoo and said,“here’s 60 bucks for the sign. this guy will make the sign. when would you like it delivered?” he said,“what’s this? oh, we’re going to take down the display when we get the funding?” “yeah,” he said, “you ought to at least warnthe people, you know, that the display’s not right.” well, they didn’t take it down. finally, iforget, 2000 people signed a petition saying, “get this thing out of our zoo.” it came on the evening news 10 o’clock onenight: “tulsa zoo has a false display.”

the next morning, it was gone. they foundthe funding! six months later, they put it back up. yale university still has their horse evolutionon display proven wrong 55 years ago. get more on the horse evolution in the book“icons of evolution.” just because you can arrange animals in order,that doesn’t prove anything. even if you find them buried in a certainorder, that doesn’t prove anything. if i get buried on top of a hamster, doesthat prove he’s my grandpa? no! order of burial means nothing! but if you think you can arrange things andthat somehow proves something.

i’ve been doing a lot of research on the evolutionof the fork. i’ve pieced together fragmentary evidence for a long time. i believe after studying this very intentlythat the knife evolved first. slowly, over millions of years, great geologicpressure squeezed it and made it concave on 1 side, convex on the other, and squeezed it intoa spoon. and then, slowly, erosion cut grooves into the end and turned it into a fork. i knew i was on to something here, but i feltlike i had a missing link, particularly between the spoon and the fork.

i just couldn’t find it until one day i wasflying to connecticut on us air. i was 30,000 feet off the ground, and thestewardess walked down the aisle and just handed me the missing link. i don’t think she knew what she had. but mytrained scientific eye picked it up right away. i said, “wow, this is it! i’ve got it!” istuck it in my pocket. later that day, i went to popeye’s chicken and found another one. (laughter) there they are, folks, the missinglinks. so the evolution of silverware is nearly complete.

of course, we’ve got a few mutants along theway that didn’t quite survive for some reason. and of course, people found out i was doingresearch on this, they all wanted to be famous, you know. so they tried to get in on the glory. theysent me their research. this one was an obvious fork head on a spoon handle. i mean, look. it didn’t get by me. i caughtit right away. you know, i don’t fall for stuff like that. even the races, of course, evolved a littlebit along the way. look, if you want to arrange things, you canturn a cap to a cop to a dot to a dog by changing

one letter at a time. you can play with this for a while and turnyourself into a fool when you’re done. they say, “dinosaurs turned to birds.” there are very few ideas as dumb as this one.the bible says god made the birds on day 5. he made the reptiles on day 6. evolution saysreptiles came first and then the birds. you know, everything about evolution is backwardsto the bible everything. but this article says, “dinosaurs alive asbirds, scientist says.” ooo, wow, scientist says, well, that proves it right there. it’s like it gives them some kind of authority.wow, scientists said. this is absurd.

everything about the bird evolution is baloney,ok? archaeoraptor was listed in 1999 as the missing link. yes, boys and girls, breaking news! nationalgeographic: we found the missing link! they had a whole big article about the missinglink has been discovered. then, a couple of months later, oops, it wasproven wrong. you know, everything about these feathereddinosaurs has been proven baloney. but guess what, they’re still teaching it.here’s a whole book: the feathered dinosaurs of china. you just got this recently? why would theystill be teaching something that’s been proven

wrong for 5 years? all this feathered dinosaur stuff is baloney.it’s all baloney. we cover more on that on one of the debates i did. i forget which one. but they say, “birds aredescendants of dinosaurs.” well, kids, in case you don’t know, thereare a few differences between a dinosaur and a bird. you don’t just put a few feathers on themand say, “come on, man, give it a try. it won’t hurt too bad.” (laughter ) it’s just not that easy. see, reptiles have4 perfectly good legs. birds have 2 legs and

2 wings. so if his front legs are going to change towings, somewhere along the line, they’re going to be half-leg and half-wing. which means, on that particular day, he can’trun anymore, and he still can’t fly yet, so he’s got a real problem. a serious problem. they say archaeopteryxis proof for evolution. you got one here on the table, brother, archaeopteryx? whenever you buy a bag of dinosaurs, theyalmost always stick one of these in there. archaeopteryx. wow.

and this somehow gets the impression to thekids, “wow, we’ve got proof that dinosaurs turned to birds. here’s one here with feathers on it.” they’relying. it’s still in the textbooks, i mean today, about archaeopteryx. and it’s been proven years ago, archaeopteryxwas just a bird, a perching bird. alan feduccia, who believes in evolution,says it’s not a missing link. it had the right features for flight. all the features of the brain were for flight,ok? archaeopteryx means “ancient wing,” and he had claws on his wings.

well, that’s kind of unusual, ok. but 12 birdstoday have claws on their wings. there is the swan, the ibis, the hoatzin; severalbirds have claws. they say, “well, he had teeth in his beak.” well, not many birds have teeth, some do.there’s the hummingbird that has teeth in his beak. but most birds don’t have teeth, i agree.actually, some mammals have teeth, some don’t. some birds have teeth, some don’t. some fishhave teeth, some don’t. some of you have teeth, some don’t, ok? (laughter) missing link! the chinese dino-bird was aforgery, and we don’t have time to cover all

of that today. but we give lots more on that on one of thedebates i did. it’s true feathers and scales are both madeof keratin, same building block, that’s true. but that’s where the similarity stops, ok?actually, birds and reptiles have different lung systems. and they have different reproductive systems,different body coverings, different brains, and different circulatory systems. thousands of differences exist between dinosaursand birds. that could be a whole seminar by itself.

it’s interesting, there are 2 different kindsof dinosaurs - the bird-hip and the lizard-hip dinosaur. their hips are very different. ask an evolutionist, “which type of dinosaur evolved into the bird?was it the bird-hip or the lizard-hip?” and they will probably kind of hang theirhead and quietly say, “well, it was the lizard-hip.” oh, so now the hip’s got to turn around backwardstoo in addition to the billions of other changes you’ve got to make. there’s no evidence of how dinosaurs evolvedto birds. none. zero. so who’s right? well, richard dawkins said, “it’s absolutelysafe to say if you meet someone who claims

not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insaneor wicked.” sounds like he’s open for a discussion. when i went to england, we tried everythingto get to debate richard dawkins. he refused. he hung up on my secretary. his secretaryhung up on me when i called back. jesus said, “ye shall love the lord your godwith all your...mind.” there’s no mental reason to reject christianity. it’s a logical deduction to say, “hey, theremust have been a designer.” you see something complicated like this world,you say, “hey, there must have been a designer.” evolution is not a fact. it’s not even a goodtheory. it’s not even a hypothesis.

it’s a metaphysical research program. julianhuxley said, “i suppose the reason we leapt at origin ofspecies was the idea of god interfered with our sexual morã©s.” we don’t want god telling us what to do. evolutionis a religion. even michael ruse said that. he said, “i’m an ardent evolutionist and anex-christian, but i must admit in this one complaint, and mr. gish is one of many to make it, theliteralists are absolutely right, evolution is a religion. this was true of evolution in the beginning,and it’s true of evolution still today.

we believe in evolution because the only alternativeis creation.” and that’s right; that is the only alternative. one russian atheist astronomer came over hereto america, and he was speaking at the university, and he said, “folks, either there is a god or there isn’t.”i thought, “wow, now that’s a brilliant conclusion to come to.” but then he said, “both possibilities arefrightening.” i thought, “wow, now that is a brilliant statement.” see, if there is a god, we’d better find outwho he is and find out what he wants and do

what he says. if there is no god, we’re in trouble. we’rehurtling through space at 66,000 miles an hour, and nobody’s in charge. that’s a scary thought. one famous scientistsaid, “this evolution transformationism (transformation) is a fairy tale for adults. the theory has helped nothing in the progressof science. it is useless.” even if evolution theory is true, it’s useless.it’s of no value to science whatsoever. “evolution is a kind of dogma which its ownpriests no longer believe but which they uphold for the people.”

even most scientists don’t believe in this,but they’re afraid of losing their job or their research grant money or they’re afraid of peer pressure. no differentthan a 5th grader, afraid what the other 5th graders think of them. we’ve got college professors out there teachingthese lies that i’ve covered just because they have to. because that’s their job. muggeridge said, “i’m convinced the theory of evolution willbe one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.”

satan is a liar. and everything about thistheory is based on lies. even tahmisian said, “people who go aboutteaching evolution are great conmen. the story they are telling may be the greatesthoax ever. we do not have one iota of fact to support this evolution theory.” sir fred hoyle, the famous astronomer said,“well, life is so complicated, it could not have evolved on earth, so it must have come from outer space.” well,duh, all that does is postpone the problem. how did it happen out there, hmm? this guysays, “evolution is a light which illuminates all facts.

all lines of thought must follow. this iswhat evolution is.” pierre de chardin and the catholic priests,they got most of the catholics to believe in evolution, including the pope. and 3 times now a pope has said, “we believein evolution.” pierre de chardin is one of the guys responsiblefor the great piltdown hoax. he’s a liar. an absolute bald-faced liar. god’s word isa light, not evolution is a light. but if a kid goes 12 or 15 years to schoolin your school system, how’s he going to view the world? probably like an evolutionist. why would theyteach these lies?

well, some people think that if everybodybelieves in evolution, that will make it true. it doesn’t matter if everybody believed init. that wouldn’t make it true yet. some people teach the lie to keep the paycheckcoming in. kids, there are teachers that don’t believein evolution, but they keep teaching it anyway because they like their paycheck every friday.and they will lie to you to keep their paycheck coming in. some understand the bigger picture. evolutionis the foundation for the new world order. we cover more on that on seminar part 5. evolutionis the foundation for marxism, nazism, communism, socialism.

that’s why when i do a debate, i always callit, “creation versus evolutionism.” it drives them nuts, you know? because they’reused to saying, “oh, it’s evolution versus creationism.” they always put the -ism on creation. so wheni flash up my sign at the beginning that says, “creation versus evolutionism debate,” theyalways sit there with that puzzled look on their face. they’re trying to read it, thinking, “youknow, something doesn’t look right about that, but i don’t know what it is.” it’s just a little jab in there, you know?why do people believe in evolution?

well, you might want to get this book: “thecase against darwin.” excellent, short book, quick read for yourintellectual friends who want to get the quick picture. some people, that’s all they’ve ever beentaught. when i spoke in russia, i was over there at the university, there were 30 professors came in to hear mespeak, and after about an hour, one of the professors began crying. and i asked the interpreter, i said, “what’she crying about?” and she said, “he’s never heard the creation story.

he didn’t know there was one. all he’s everheard is evolution. he wants you to keep going.” i went for another hour. i spoke at a publicschool over there in russia. the room would seat 400 kids. they had 700 high schoolers (high school students) come in thereand listen to me for 2 hours. i mean, you could have heard a pin drop thewhole time. i couldn’t believe it. when i asked the principal before i started,i said, “hey, are there any things i shouldn’t say to these kids? i know this is a public school, and it’s kindof sensitive.” he said, “what do you mean?” i said, “well, i’m a christian. is it okayto tell them, you know, to mention the bible?”

he said, “oh yeah, tell them anything youwant.” i said, “well, would it be okay if i told them, you know, how to go to heaven?” he said, “sure, sure, please do. these kidswould love to hear about christianity. they’ve never heard any of this.” wow! a door you could drive a truck through, brother.but they use the same lies in russian textbooks. here’s a russian textbook talking about theforelimb proving evolution, the different geologic column strata, all the stuff we covered earlier. why do theybelieve this stuff? well, some believe it because it’s all they’ve been taught.

some, their job depends on it. some, theyhope there’s no god to answer to. they do not like to retain god in their knowledge,the bible says. they just don’t like this idea. and it says, “god will send them strong delusion.”the more i think about this, that is so true. anybody that believes they came from a rock4.6 billion years ago has to be strongly deluded. think about it. oh, there’s so much we couldcover on this. some people simply have too much pride toadmit they have been wrong all their life. so kids are being taught evolution. there’sno question about it. kids are being lied to in these textbooks.there’s no question about it. what do we do

about it? well, we cover that in great detail on ourpublic school presentation on the green series of tapes. get the public school presentation. we’lltell you step-by-step what to do: how to get these lies out of your textbook;how you can get on the school textbook selection committee; how you can get your kid exempt from class.parents, if your kids are in a public school, you should send a little note to the teachersaying, “i don’t want my child taught evolution. it’s against my religious convictions.” signit, notarize it if you’d like, give it to

the teacher and to the principal. then, if they continue giving you a hard time,you say, “oh, now, excuse me. do you discriminate against people becauseof their religious convictions?” watch their eyes light up on that one. and if they still give you a hard time, contactme. i’ve got some lawyers waiting in the wingsthat are anxious to get a lawsuit like that. title 42 - discrimination based on religion.wow, that principal’s going to be the garbage collector the next week. i guarantee that principal is going to callthat teacher and say, “look, let this kid

out of class. stop teaching evolution.” i had one guy call me a couple of years ago.he said, “brother hovind, my 2nd grade daughter’s teacher just called me, and the teacher said, ‘mr. jones (whateverhis name was, i forget), your 2nd grader is in my class, your daughter, and she stops me every time i start teachingsomething about evolution.’ and the teacher said, ‘i’ve just decided i’mgoing to skip this evolution stuff for the rest of the year until your daughter is out of my class.’”(laughter) and my first thought was, yeah!

and then i thought, “wait, wait, wait, wait: whyare we sending 2nd graders off to war?” this is a battle the parents ought to be fighting,not the kids. we’re the salt of the earth. salt irritates. hey, if nobody’s irritated at you, you’renot a good christian. you don’t have to try to irritate them. you try to be salty, that will irritate them.salt preserves from corruption. how come you’ve got so many lies in the textbooksright here in tennessee in the middle of the bible-belt. where arethe christians that are supposed to preserve the world, huh?

why don’t some of you get on the school boardand do something about this? why don’t some of you get a committee to say,“hey, let’s take these pages out of the book. this is a lie.” it won’t cost the school anything. i’ll showyou. how many of you would volunteer to take thepages out of the book and bring your own scissors? it won’t cost the school a dime. let’s dobetter than that. how many of you would pay $20 for the privilegeof being on the committee to cut the pages out of the book and still bring your own scissors? we justhad a fundraiser.

we just raised $1000 for the school. wow!it won’t cost them a dime. there are many good, sincere, godly publicschool teachers, and i praise god for them. and they are as frustrated as i am with what’sgoing on. if you’ve got a good teacher in your schoolthat wants to do what’s right, support them. because i guarantee if there’s a teacher thattries to get up and stand up for creation and against evolution, there’s a good possibility they’ll get firedor get persecuted for it. we cover much more on that on video #7, howteachers get persecuted for standing up for what’s right.

many teach this theory because they simplyhave never been taught anything else. many don’t know it’s okay to teach creation.it’s perfectly fine. oh, what do we do? well, there’s a long history of how we gotthis theory in our schools. and we’ll cover all that in the public schoolpresentation. what do we do about it? it’s all covered onvideotape #5. we’ll show you the dangers of this theory. it’s not just a dumb idea. evolution is adangerous religion. i’m going to tell you some real practicalsteps to fix it on seminar part 5. thank you for joining us.

we hope you’ve enjoyed this video series oncreation, evolution and dinosaurs. much more important, though, than knowingall the truth and facts about science is to know the truth about whether you’regoing to heaven or not. if you’ve never trusted christ as your savior,let me explain quickly what you need to do to go to heaven. the bible says we’re all sinners. we’ve allbroken god’s laws. we’ve disobeyed the creator. we’ve done wicked things. we’re sinners. someare worse than others, at least in man’s eyes. but we’ve all broken god’s laws. and the biblesays you have to repent. the word “repent” means to turn, it actuallymeans 2 things, to turn from your sin and

to turn to god. god’s looking for a change in your attitudewhere you say, “lord, i don’t want to do wrong anymore. i’msorry i’ve offended you. i want to do right.” and you turn from sin, and you turn to godand say, “god, would you please forgive me? would you save me?” the bible says in romans chapter 3, verse23: “for all have sinned and come short of the glory of god.” you need to admit you’re a sinner. number2: the bible says in romans 6:23, “the wages of sin is death.”

we deserve to die and go to hell because ofour sin. but, jesus died for you. he loves you. he wants you to come to heaven. and anybody that will ask him for free salvation,god will give you the gift of eternal life it says in romans 6:23. it’s a free gift. and it says in romans chapter10 and verse 13: “whosoever shall call upon the name of thelord shall be saved.” if you would just call and say, “lord, i’ma sinner. would you please forgive me?” and ask him. he will give you that free gift of eternallife. why don’t you just pray with me right

now. and you could receive christ as your savior?there’s no magic words. god’s looking at your heart. but if you could say this and mean it, godwould forgive you. just say, “dear lord jesus, i know that i’ma sinner. i’ve broken your laws. i’m sorry. please forgive me. please apply your blood to my account. forgivemy sins and take me to heaven. in jesus’ name, amen.” the bible says, “if you call upon the lord,you shall be saved.”

so if you’ve asked the lord to save you, hepromised he’d save you. now your job is to grow. read your bible, pray, and get involved ina good bible-believing church. and begin to grow to be a good christian. thank you so much. call or write if we canbe any help at all. we’d be glad to help. for more information on the ministry of creation science evangelism,write us at creation science evangelism, 29 cummings road, pensacola, florida, 32503 or call us at (850) 479-3466. that’s (850) 479-dino, you may also visit us onon the web at www.drdino.com. that’s: www.drdino.com.