Dr. Hogan taught science for 15 years.
Then he got his PhD in education.
He's always had a love for teaching.
But one thing that he's discovered, is that
in many of the science textbooks across America
today, there are some fallacies.
What are they trying to prove?
Hi, my name is Erie, and in this
seminar called...
and what you can do about it.
...on creation, evolution and dinosaurs.
And I'm concerned that what kids are being
taught in our classroom is simply not true.
There are some lies in our textbooks.
In our first few seminar tapes, we talk
about a variety of lies in the books.
Now, I like science.
I'm not against science.
I collect science textbooks.
I have actually hundreds of them.
And I really, really like science.
But I'm concerned there are some things in
these books that just simply are not true.
Somebody wants your kids to believe a particular
theory, which is understandable.
Everybody tries to convert others to their belief
system.
I'm going to try to convert you to
my belief system.
That's perfectly fine for everybody to try to
do that.
However, you don't want to use lies to
accomplish that.
So I'm going to tell you about some
of the lies in the textbooks.
In my first three videos, on number one,
we talk about how students are being lied
to about the Big Bang.
It's a big dud.
It didn't happen.
They're being lied to about the age of
the Earth.
The Earth is not billions of years old.
They're being lied to about the cavemen.
There's never been a caveman, unless you mean
Osama Bin Laden.
They're being lied to about the dinosaurs.
Dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago.
Dinosaurs lived with Adam and Eve in the
Garden of Eden.
And on this tape, we're going to talk
about at least 25 or 26, maybe even
30 if we get time, more lies that
students have to face in their textbooks.
And then on tape number five, we're going
to tell you what you can do about
it and some of the dangers of this
philosophy.
More lies in the textbooks.
Let me set the record straight right up
front.
I am not trying to get evolution out
of the schools.
I'm not trying to get creation into the
schools.
I just want the lies out of the
textbooks.
I think we'll find if we take the
lies out of the books, there's nothing left
to support the evolution theory.
Okay, well, that's their problem.
If all you have to support your theory
are things that have been proven wrong years
ago, I think it's about time you get
a new theory.
Is there anybody here who thinks teachers or
textbooks should be allowed to deliberately lie to
students for any reason?
Okay.
Wisconsin has a law that requires textbooks to
be accurate.
So does Alabama.
Textbooks shall be adequate and current.
Texas says instructional material shall be factual.
Florida has a law that says instructional material
shall be accurate.
California says textbooks shall be factually accurate.
Minnesota says the teacher shall not deliberately suppress
or distort subject matter.
The problem is absolutely none of those states,
including your state, enforce the law as it's
written on the book.
The books are simply not accurate.
Here's a public school textbook from 1908.
They told the kids in 1908, God created
the heavens and the earth in six days.
And all that was made was very good.
Prayer is a duty, but it's vain to
pray without a sincere desire of heart.
God governs the world in infinite wisdom.
Public school textbook.
Here's a public school textbook from the year
2000.
Evolution is a fact.
Now, theory.
Birds arose from non-birds and humans from
non-humans.
No person who pretends to have an understanding
of the natural world can deny these facts.
I think things have changed a little bit,
folks.
By the way, when he says evolution is
a fact, this is called a mantra.
They think if you say it long enough
and loud enough, everybody will start believing it.
It's not a fact.
Evolution is a religion.
This textbook says, boys and girls, even though
most scientists and religious leaders no longer see
evolution and religion as in conflict, a minority
of Christian fundamentalists remain opposed to evolutionary biology.
This is called slanted journalism.
A minority of fundamentalists, they're trying to marginalize
those, even though it's the majority of the
population of America that believes this, not the
minority.
Look what it says over here.
It says, creation science states that all species
were created by God roughly 10,000 years
ago and that they have not evolved since.
By the way, let me stop right there.
That is not what creation science teaches.
Creation science teaches that all the kinds of
animals were created roughly 10,000 years ago.
And the only evolution has been variations within
those kinds.
So they're setting up a straw man here
so they can knock it down and think
they won the argument.
Keep reading here.
As scientific issues, we know these assertions are
false.
Over here they tell the kids, if we
prevent our secondary school students from learning what
science has to offer, let me stop right
there, I'm not trying to prevent students from
learning what science has to offer.
I love science.
I'm trying to prevent students from being lied
to.
But man, show us, what does science have
to offer?
Things that we can observe and test and
demonstrate.
Evolution is not part of science.
That's the problem.
Watch this now.
If we prevent our students from learning what
science has to offer, we run the risk
that they will not be able to compete
effectively in college classrooms or in today's global
economy.
This is the evolutionist altar call.
Right there.
The world will be destroyed if we don't
preach evolution.
Oh, the sky is falling.
We've got to get more evolution or we're
all going to die.
They somehow think that their religion is important
in our schools, and it's not.
This textbook has over 100 pages where evolution
theory is presented to the kids.
Not one mention of creation.
If they do mention creation, it's always in
ridicule, like the one I showed you a
minute ago.
A minority of Christian fundamentalists.
Folks, things have changed in our textbooks.
Now, this chart shows how the atheists rate
the United States based on how well they
teach evolution.
If your state is red, they think you're
doing a lousy job of teaching evolution.
Yay, go Wisconsin!
The green states are doing a very good
or excellent job of teaching evolution.
They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Is there anybody here that thinks teachers or
textbooks should be allowed to use outdated or
false information just to get students to believe
a particular theory?
No?
Okay.
Anybody here that thinks teachers that lie, deliberately
lie, should be fired?
Okay, fair enough.
Now, anybody here that thinks textbooks with lies
should be banned or the lies torn out?
Sure, okay, good.
Just so we're all on the same page
here.
Now, it's always amazed me how two people
can look at the same thing and come
to opposite conclusions of what they are seeing.
Two people can look at Grand Canyon.
One of them believes in evolution.
He looks at the canyon and says, Wow,
look what the Colorado River did for millions
and millions of years.
The Bible-believing Christian stands there, looks at
the same canyon, and says, Wow, look what
the flood did in about 30 minutes.
Now, how was that canyon formed anyway?
This textbook says, Over millions of years, the
Colorado River has carved the Grand Canyon from
solid rock.
Now, just slow down a minute.
Kids, it is a fact Grand Canyon exists.
How many have been to Grand Canyon?
I taught earth science, studied Grand Canyon avidly.
I like Grand Canyon.
Beautiful place.
Big hole in the ground.
Now, there are two interpretations of how it
got there.
The evolutionists have an interpretation, and so do
the creationists.
The evolutionist is going to tell you that
canyon formed slowly by a little bit of
water and lots of time.
Millions of years.
The creationist is going to tell you, Oh,
the canyon formed quickly by lots of water
and a little bit of time.
The guys who believe in evolution are continually
trying to erase the line between their interpretation
and the fact column, and they want you
to somehow think that what they interpret as
evidence is now part of the fact.
You got to really watch them on this.
They're pretty slick.
This textbook author does it just blatantly.
He says, The Colorado River has cut through
layer upon layer of rock over millions of
years.
Now, just hold on a minute.
I was in a debate one time, and
this atheist said, Oh, you're so dumb.
Don't you know it took millions of years
to make Grand Canyon?
I said, Well, sir, I taught earth science
for years.
I really enjoy studying Grand Canyon.
I said, Did you know if you built
a dam across Grand Canyon, that would take
a lot of dirt, by the way.
But if you did, a huge lake would
fill in behind it.
Did you know some of the water from
Montana drains through the Grand Canyon?
It's a huge drainage area.
I said, Sir, did you know that in
between these two red lines is what we
call the snow line.
There's a ridge right there.
The Grand Canyon enters at the far right
over here.
The elevation of the river at that point
is 2,800 feet above sea level.
The river flows downhill for 270 miles and
comes out the other side.
And in between, while the river's flowing down,
the ground is rising up and then slowly
coming back down.
It is so wide, 270 miles, that you
don't notice it until you get way back
and look at it from a satellite.
But if you look at it in a
cross section, this schematic shows the difference here.
The river enters right here and flows downhill
and comes out the other side.
It's actually going through a giant ridge, 270
miles long.
At the highest point of the ridge, the
river's at about 1,800 foot elevation, so
it's nearly a one-mile drop down into
the canyon.
Really big hole in the ground.
I said, Sir, there are a couple things
you ought to consider about Grand Canyon.
I said, Did you know the top of
Grand Canyon is higher than the bottom?
He said, Yes.
I said, Sir, did you know the river
runs through the bottom?
He said, Yes.
I said, Sir, did you know the top
is higher than where the river enters the
canyon?
By over 4,000 feet?
I said, Sir, did you know that rivers
don't flow uphill?
I said, Sir, did you know there is
no delta?
Nobody knows where the mud is that got
washed out of there, but it's probably out
in the Pacific Ocean.
They can't find the delta for Grand Canyon.
There is no possible way that river made
that canyon.
Grand Canyon is quite obviously a washed-out
spillway.
There used to be two big lakes, Grand
Lake and Hopi Lake, and they got too
full one day.
Who knows when?
I suspect shortly after the flood, maybe a
few hundred years later, the ice caps melted
or something, and the lakes got too full,
and the water went over the top while
the ground was still relatively soft.
Within the first few hundred years, washed out
that canyon in a hurry.
There are still beaches where the lakes used
to be.
They call them Grand Lake and Hopi Lake.
The lake is long gone, but you can
still see the beach line where the lake
used to be.
Grand Canyon is a washed-out spillway, folks.
The water got too deep, went over the
top, and washed out that whole region in
a real big hurry.
So when they tell you it took millions
of years, they're lying to you.
It did not.
It's not geophysically possible.
If you look at the way most rivers
come together, almost all rivers join at what
are called acute angles, less than 90 degrees.
You can look at any map of the
world, nearly all rivers come together and keep
going the same general direction.
Well, if you look at Grand Canyon, the
rivers on the lower left side join at
acute angles, normal river pattern.
If you look at the right side, the
rivers go backwards and run into the channel
and turn around and come back the other
way.
This is evidence of a big lake that
is draining.
Any farmer that's ever built a dam to
hold water to feed his cows or something,
or water his cows, will tell you, once
the water goes over the top of the
dam, it can wash it out in a
hurry.
And it doesn't wash away the whole dam,
it washes one slot, wherever the water finds
the weakest point.
So the water's running backwards off the dam
to hit the lower channel, turn around, come
back the other way.
Grand Canyon was not formed by the Colorado
River, folks.
Grand Canyon was formed by a flood.
A lot of water with a little bit
of time.
Are there any farmers or veterinarians in the
crowd that might know what this machine is?
Anybody know what that is?
What is that, sir?
That's a calf puller.
That's a what?
A calf puller.
Once in a while, a cow has a
hard time having that baby calf, and so
to get the calf puller out, tie the
cable around the calf's leg and jack the
calf out of the cow.
You get a few tons of pressure on
there, that calf comes right out, no problem.
One day, this farmer was out pulling a
calf.
It was a breech birth.
The back feet are coming out first.
Not good, but hey, it happens once in
a while.
And so the farmer had the calf puller
out there, and he's pulling the calf out
of the cow, and a city fella stopped
his car to see what on earth is
going on.
And the farmer said, hey, you ever seen
anything like this before?
The city fella said, no, sir, I ain't
never seen nothing like this.
The farmer said, you got any questions?
The city fella said, yes, sir, I have
one question.
The farmer said, let's hear it.
The city fella said, how fast do you
figure that calf was going when it ran
into that cow?
No, no, no, no, we're not separating the
rack here, fellas.
You know, two people can look at the
same thing, and one of them gets the
wrong idea what's going on, The Bible warned
us that was going to happen.
2 Peter chapter 3, knowing this verse, there
shall come in the last days scoffers.
Did you know there are people that scoff
at the Bible?
I deal with them on a regular basis.
I attract them like a lightning rod.
And the Bible says they're going to walk
after their own lust.
See, the reason some people don't like the
Bible is because of their lust, not because
of their science.
They don't like that book because it traps
their hide.
I tell them, you better get some Vaseline,
man, you're going to need it because you're
going to be judged by that book whether
you like it or not.
Well, the scoffers in the last days, the
Bible says they're going to say, where is
the promise of his coming?
For since the fathers fell asleep, all things
continue as they were.
Boy, that's an important phrase.
Peter told us in the last days, the
scoffers would say the way things are happening
now is the way they've always been happening.
Long, slow, gradual processes.
Hmm.
Uniformitarianism.
The Bible says the scoffers will be willingly
ignorant.
Willingly ignorant.
In the Greek, that means dumb on purpose.
They're willingly ignorant of how God made the
heavens and the earth.
We cover that on video number two, why
it's heavens, plural, and how the earth was
overflowed with water and perished.
The scoffers are willingly ignorant of the flood.
We'll cover a lot more about the flood
on videotape number six.
What caused the flood anyway and what damage
it did to this planet?
Well, one of the scoffers in the last
days was a guy named James Hutton.
James Hutton lived in the late 1700s and
he wrote a book and said the earth
is much older than everybody thinks.
Now, you need to understand, during James Hutton's
lifetime, most people believed the Bible and most
people thought the earth was about 6,000
years old.
But this was also a time of many
revolutions.
We had the American Revolution, the French Revolution,
the Spanish, the Polish, the German.
Everybody's getting rid of the king and establishing
democracies.
Well, whether that's good or bad is another
subject, but the fact is the Bible says
to honor the king and some people thought
the Bible was an obstacle to their political
objectives.
And so they wanted to discredit the Bible.
So, back when everybody thought the earth was
a few thousand years old, James Hutton came
along and said it's millions of years old.
He was one of the first guys in
the Western world to come across this idea
and say, oh, wow, maybe the earth is
real old.
James Hutton developed an idea called uniformitarianism.
The present is the key to the past.
In other words, the way things are happening
now is the way things have always been
happening, just like Peter prophesied these guys would
come.
Well, I think the Bible is the only
perfect key to the past, but that's another
story.
The fact is, James Hutton's book that he
wrote had a very strong influence on a
young lawyer from Scotland.
The lawyer's name was Charles Lyell.
Charles Lyell, the lawyer, hated the Bible.
Somebody calculated at one time that if all
the lawyers in the world were laid end
to end around the equator, we would all
be better off.
In 1830, Charles Lyell wrote this book right
here, Principles of Geology.
Here on this book, you can see his
hatred for the Bible kind of ooze off
every page.
This guy really did not like the Bible.
He kept referring to it as ancient doctrines.
You know, you're outdated if you believe the
Bible.
He talked about those people who have religious
prejudices because they believe the Bible.
He said the men of superior talent who
thought for themselves and were not blinded by
authority.
I mean, you can just skin through it
for yourself and you'll see he didn't like
the Bible.
Charles Lyell said his goal was to free
the science from Moses.
What do you suppose he meant by that?
You see, people who read what Moses wrote
will feel that God made the world in
six days and the flood formed most of
the geology of the world.
Noah's flood messed up the real estate big
time.
And if people believe the book that Moses
wrote, they're going to think that coal, oil,
natural gas formed from the flood when things
got buried.
And they're going to think the canyons formed
as the water ran off from the flood.
Lyell didn't like that idea.
He wanted people to believe the earth is
millions of years old.
Charles Lyell, in this book, building on the
work of a couple other guys, he developed
the idea that each layer of the earth
is a different age.
And he invented what we call today the
geologic column.
How many of you have ever heard of
the geologic column before?
He divided the earth up into layers and
he gave each one a name, an age,
and an index fossil.
Maybe you saw the movie Jurassic Park named
after the Jurassic layer.
Each layer was given a name and they
told everybody how old it was.
Now, this was done in 1830, long before
there ever was carbon dating, potassium-argon dating,
rubidium-strontium dating, lead 208, lead 206, uranium
-235, uranium-238.
None of those existed.
This was all done based on the assumption
that each layer is a different age.
They made up the whole thing out of
the clear blue sky.
And it's a fact the earth has many
layers of rock.
No question.
That's a fact, folks.
How'd they get there?
Well, there are two interpretations.
The evolutionists will say the layers form slowly
over millions of years and each one is
a different age.
The Bible-believing Christians says, oh no, these
layers are all from the flood in the
days of Noah.
You can get a jar of dirt and
shake it up, set it down, it'll settle
into layers for you in a few minutes.
But the guys, again, who believe in evolution
are always trying to erase the line and
make you think their interpretation is part of
the fact column.
The geologic column is actually the Bible for
the evolutionists.
It can only be found in one place
on planet earth.
The only place you will ever find the
geologic column is in the textbooks.
There is no geologic column.
This guy admits it.
He said, if there were a column of
sediments, unfortunately, no such column exists.
A professor I debated one time said, oh,
you're wrong.
Now there are 26 places on planet earth
where the geologic column exists.
I said, no, I'm sorry, you're wrong.
There are 26 places on planet earth where
the fossils are found in the order you
would like them to be.
But that doesn't prove the geologic column exists
in any of those places.
There is no geologic column.
If there was, in one place, it would
be 100 miles thick.
And the obvious question would be, where's all
this dirt coming from?
One of the biggest lies kids face in
the textbooks is about the geologic column.
It's a joke.
It's a hoax.
It doesn't exist.
But that really caused problems for the world
in 1830 when it was taught.
We'll get into that in a minute.
Look, there's no question the earth has layers.
But if those layers are different ages, why
are there no erosion marks between the layers?
They all just fit tight to each other
like pancakes.
I mean, don't you think if that one
layer sat there waiting for the next one
to come on top, it'd rain once in
a while in 10 million years?
Just go home and get a jar of
dirt and put some water in it and
shake it up, folks.
It'll settle out into layers for you in
a few seconds.
It's called hydrologic sorting.
Many years ago, I was speaking in Union
Center, South Dakota.
Union Center is right there.
It's not even on the map.
And South Dakota puts everything they can find
on the map just to fill in the
white places.
There were 40 people in the whole town.
38 of them came to church.
I don't know where the other two were.
Probably out pulling a calf, I reckon.
But we had a great time.
It was a wonderful little church out there
in the country.
The preacher said, Hey, Brother Hovind, let's go
down to Rapid City.
They've got a museum with dinosaurs.
I said, Man, I like dinosaurs.
Let's go.
So we all drove down to Rapid City.
We walked in the door and this old
fellow met us at the door and he
said, Folks, I'm a guide here.
Would you like me to give you a
tour?
We said, That would be great, sir.
The first place we stopped on the tour
was the Geologic Time Scale.
They've got it behind glass, all lit up.
It's holy.
Don't touch it.
We're standing there and the guide said, Now,
folks, this layer of rock you're looking at
right here is about 70 million years old.
And it's so cool because they always get
that sanctimonious tone in their voice, you know?
70 million years old.
Oh.
My daughter raised her hand.
She said, Sir, how do you know that
layer is 70 million years old?
He said, That's a good question, honey.
He said, We tell how old these layers
are by what kinds of fossils are found
in them.
They're called index fossils.
She said, Okay.
We walked around the other side.
We're standing over here and the guide said,
Now, folks, these bones you're looking at are
about 100 million years old.
My daughter raised her hand again.
She said, Sir, how do you know the
age of those fossils?
He said, Well, honey, we tell the age
of the fossils by which layer they came
from.
She said, Sir, when we were standing over
there, you told me you knew the age
of the layers by the bones and now
you're telling me you know the age of
the bones by the layers.
She said, 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 if he were thinking
he looked at my daughter.
He looked at me.
I wasn't about to help him.
I thought, Man, this is going to be
good.
I got to hear this.
He looked back at my daughter.
He said, Man, you're right.
That is circular reasoning.
He said, Man, I never thought of that
before.
That poor fellow drove 50 miles one way
that night to hear me speak in Union
Center, South Dakota.
The crowd swelled to 39.
We set up a chair in the aisle.
Afterwards, he talked to me for almost an
hour.
He said, Hovind, is everything I believe about
geology wrong?
I teach this stuff at the college.
I said, Oh, no, man, I like geology.
Are you kidding?
You've learned the names of all the minerals.
That's a good trick, folks.
There are twelve hundred minerals.
Some have names about this big.
I said, You've learned the hardness test, the
Rockwell test, the scratch test.
I said, No, sir, I like geology.
I like rocks and minerals.
I have a huge fossil collection, a big
mineral collection.
I like minerals.
I said, But the part about them being
different ages is all baloney.
But he doesn't dare quit teaching it because
he'll lose his job.
See, people who don't support the evolution theory
lose their job in public schools.
That's the way it works.
We cover more on that on video number
seven.
It's a carefully protected state religion.
It's all based on circular reasoning.
I'll show you.
This textbook tells the kids on page 306
to date the fossils, I'm sorry, date the
rocks by the fossils.
On the next page, it says, Date the
fossils by the rocks.
Circular reasoning.
This is silly.
This guy says, The intelligent layman has long
suspected circular reasoning and the use of rocks
to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.
The geologist has never bothered to think of
a good reply.
This guy says, I can think of no
cases of radioactive decay being used to date
fossils.
If they tell you they date the fossils
by carbon dating or potassium argon or one
of those other ones, they're wrong.
That's not how it's done.
Fossils are dated by which strata they come
from.
Strata are dated by which fossils they contain.
Circular reasoning.
Radiometric dating would not even be feasible if
the geologic column had not been erected first.
This guy says, The rocks do date the
fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more
accurately.
I think the cheese done fell out of
his sandwich, folks.
If somebody charges you with circular reasoning, here's
how they answer them.
They say, The charge of circular reasoning can
be, in stratigraphy, can be handled several ways.
It can be ignored.
It's not the proper concern of the public.
In other words, it's none of your business
how we do it.
Or it can be denied by calling down
the law of evolution.
It can be admitted as a common practice
or avoided by pragmatic reasoning.
But the fact is, it's all based on
circular reasoning.
I like to ask the evolutionists, I'll say,
Fellas, your geologic column contains limestone in quite
a few different places.
I mean, if I just handed you a
piece of limestone and said, How old is
it?
How would you know if it's 100 million
year old Jurassic limestone or 600 million year
old Cambrian limestone?
I mean, they're both limestone.
How would you know the age of it?
They'd say, Oh, that's easy.
We would tell by the index fossils.
Precisely my point.
This textbook shows the kids a trilobite.
And it says a trilobite's a good index
fossil.
If you find a trilobite, it probably lived
five to six hundred million years ago.
I don't think so.
Somebody found a human shoe print where the
guy had stepped on and smashed a trilobite.
They asked geologists all over, How could a
human step on a trilobite if trilobites lived
500 million years ago?
One guy said, Well, maybe, maybe aliens visited
the planet 500 million years ago.
Hey, those aliens will do it every time.
Another guy said, Maybe there was a large
trilobite shaped like a shoe that fell on
a small one.
Well, hey, there are some big trilobites, okay,
but they're not shaped like a shoe.
Second Peter's got the best story about that
one.
The scoffers are willingly ignorant.
You'd have to have help to be that
dumb.
You couldn't do it on your own.
Trilobite had the most complicated eyeball ever.
That's supposedly one of the first creatures to
evolve in the Cambrian explosion.
I mean, come on, it's got an eyeball,
incredibly complex.
Trilobites did not live millions of years ago.
There could be some trilobites still alive.
There certainly are isopods which are very similar,
except one piece shell instead of three lobes.
Otherwise, could be a descendant, a mutant, which
is, by the way, which is a loss
of information, not a gain.
This textbook shows the kids a fossil graptolite.
This is the New York State fossil.
It says graptolites lived 410 million years ago.
Only problem is they found graptolites still alive.
Now, if they're still alive, couldn't they be
found in any rock layer?
This one shows the kids the Devonian period.
It says this is from 325 million years
ago.
It has lobe-finned fish.
They got a short leg and then the
fin.
Well, this is silly.
Lobe-finned fish are still very much alive
today.
It's called the coelacanth.
And when they first found the coelacanth still
alive in 1938, they said, wow, would you
look at this?
They survived for 325 million years.
It never dawned on them one time to
question the geologic column.
That thought never crossed their brain.
This lady wrote a book about it.
A Fish Caught in Time.
Yes, boys and girls, this is our own
great uncle, 40 million times removed.
I'm not sure I can help somebody like
that.
This textbook says that Cretaceous and Jurassic period
are from dinosaurs that lived 70 million years
ago.
Oh, come on.
Dinosaurs have always lived with man.
We cover that in video number three.
Dinosaur blood was found inside a T-Rex
bone about 10 years ago.
They tried everything they could to disprove it
and they could.
This is dinosaur blood cells.
It's not going to last 70 million years.
Human hands were found fossilized in the same
strata as dinosaurs were found fossilized.
Textbooks say the layers are different ages.
I'm sorry, that's baloney.
Now, Charlie Darwin didn't like round numbers.
He said the weld-in deposits are 306
,662,400 years old.
How he knows is anybody's guess.
But here they are telling the kids the
layers are different ages and yet all over
the world petrified trees are found like this
one standing up connecting different rock layers.
Now, if you have a petrified tree standing
up running through multiple rock layers, I don't
think it's common sense to say that the
layers are different ages.
Not by much anyway.
I mean, how long can a dead tree
stand there before it falls down?
Five years?
Ten years?
Twenty years?
Five thousand years?
I doubt that.
And yet, petrified trees in the poly, they're
called polystrata fossils going through multiple layers.
They're very common.
Hundreds and hundreds have been found.
It would only take one to prove the
point.
But hundreds have been found petrified standing up.
In central Alabama there's a large coal mine
where they found all kinds of petrified trees
standing up.
Now, the kids have been taught for years
that those two layers of coal called the
Mary Lee and the Blue Creek formation are
different ages by millions of years.
And yet, when you get all the fossils
together they label them sample A, B, C,
D, E, F, G, H you can put
it together and figure out and prove positively
that Mary Lee and the Blue Creek had
to form within a few weeks or months
of each other.
That's exactly what you get in a flood.
We cover more on that on video number
six about the flood, what caused the coal
seams during the flood.
Here's some from Crookville, Tennessee.
Petrified trees standing up running through multiple layers.
Joggins, Nova Scotia is famous for its petrified
trees in the vertical position.
Most of these pictures are on our website
drdino.com We've got a piece of petrified
wood in our museum running through twelve different
layers of slate.
And they're going to tell you in school
each layer of slate represents a different season.
That's twelve years.
I'm sorry, that's not true.
That represents movement of the water and separation
of the particles by density or something like
that.
We get into that in video six.
So don't let them tell you the layers
are different ages.
Sometimes trees are found petrified upside down running
through multiple rock layers.
Now we really have a problem.
I've thought about this one until my brain
hurts.
As far as I can figure this out,
the evolutionist only has two ways to solve
this.
He can say the trees stood upright for
millions of years while the layers slowly formed
around them.
I find that one hard to believe.
Or he can say the trees grew through
hundreds of feet of solid rock looking for
sunlight.
There's a third way to solve this.
Maybe those trees were buried in a big
flood.
How fast was that calf going?
Might be two ways to look at this,
you know.
Well, Mount St. Helens blew its top.
It blew thousands of trees down into Spirit
Lake.
Over 20,000 trees have already sunk to
the bottom and are stuck in the mud
at the bottom of Spirit Lake.
Many thousands of them are standing up in
the vertical position.
And those trees are going to petrify.
They're already beginning to petrify.
It does not take long for things to
petrify.
Here's a piece of petrified firewood.
I've got a piece of petrified pallet in
our museum from a pallet shop that cut
pieces of wood.
Some kid sent me a box of petrified
acorns.
He said, Brother Hovind, I tried an experiment.
I put these acorns in a bucket of
water and forgot about them.
A year later, I thought maybe they might
sprout, but now they're all petrified.
Would you like some for your museum?
I mean, they're solid rock.
Here's a petrified dog inside a tree in
Georgia.
They cut the tree down for firewood and
said, wait, wait, wait, don't cut that one
up.
There's a dog inside.
Turned to stone.
Here's a petrified cowboy boot with the cowboy's
legs still in it.
The boot was made in the 1950s.
Here's a petrified fish giving birth.
Petrified hat from New Zealand.
Here's a petrified pickle in our museum.
I'm not kidding.
The guy sent it to me.
He said, Brother Hovind, we found this old
house in Montana.
The roof was gone.
The house had been empty for at least
30 years.
We went down the basement.
Here's a bunch of jars of pickles.
A pantry.
But the lid to one of the jars
rusted off and inside the pickle turned to
stone.
Would you like it for your museum?
I said, well, yeah.
A petrified pickle.
The jar was made between 1930 and 1960.
That's the year they made those jars.
I don't know when the pickle got put
in there, but sometime in there.
Don't let them tell you it takes millions
of years.
There's petrified sacks of flour found in Eureka
Springs, Arkansas.
From a flour mill that flooded in the
1910s, I believe.
So, kids, when they tell you the layers
are different ages, you're being lied to.
That's not true.
Don't believe that.
80 to 85 percent of Earth's surface does
not even have three geologic periods appearing in
correct consecutive order.
This guy says it becomes an overall exercise
of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the
evolutionary and uniformitarian paradigm to maintain there ever
were geologic periods.
The geologic column is a hoax.
The geologic column is one of the biggest
lies ever passed off on humanity, but the
vast majority of the world believes it, even
though it doesn't exist.
When they started teaching that in the 1830s,
people began to change their world view away
from what the Bible teaches to this new
view from Charlie Lyell, the lawyer from Scotland,
that each layer was a different age.
This teaching really had a strong influence on
a young preacher from England.
There was a fellow that just graduated from
Bible college to be a preacher.
His name was Charles Darwin.
The only degree Darwin ever got was a
theology degree.
And today, they call him a great scientist.
All he got was a theology degree, which
is not bad.
I mean, but he's not a scientist.
Charles Darwin set sail on board the Beagle.
He's going to sail around the world and
collect bugs for somebody back in England.
And he decided to bring some books with
him to read.
He's going to be gone for five years.
As he sailed around, he brought with his
Bible and he brought with that book by
Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology.
That book changed his life forever.
Darwin later wrote to a friend and said,
this belief crept over me slowly.
I felt no distress.
He slowly lost his faith in the Bible.
By the way, later when he died, his
wife started the rumor that he repented on
his deathbed.
That rumor still circulates today, but apparently his
wife made up the whole thing.
Nobody knows for sure, but that's what the
best research says.
Darwin sailed around the world.
He stopped off at these islands right there
called the Galapagos Islands.
There on those islands, Charlie noticed there were
14 different varieties of finches, a little bird
about this big.
But their beak shape was different.
Now, Charlie didn't like birds too well.
I mean, he raised pigeons, but he also
liked worms.
He was a strange guy.
So he shot all kinds of birds thinking,
you know, he would help the worms out,
give them a better chance of survival.
His birds ate worms and he thought that
might be kind of hard on the worms.
So he shot all the birds he could
find.
Well, he collected all these birds and he
noticed there were 14 varieties of finches.
He studied them carefully and said, you know
what, folks?
I think all these birds have a common
ancestor.
I bet you're right, Charlie.
It was a bird.
And then Charlie said, you know, maybe this
proves that birds are related to bananas.
He said, oh, he didn't say that.
Oh, he sure did.
I got his book right here.
Charlie Darwin said in his book on page
170.
He said, it's a truly wonderful fact that
all animals and all plants throughout all time
and space should be related to each other.
Isn't he saying the birds and the bananas
are related?
He sure is.
That's a lie.
There's no proof any animal is related to
a different kind of animal other than maybe
a common designer.
Charlie noticed what is sometimes called micro evolution.
I don't like that word.
I think it confuses kids.
I'm going to use it for you to
understand what I mean.
Micro evolution is actually just a variation.
OK?
Dogs produce a variety of dogs.
Roses produce a variety of roses.
Nobody argues about that.
It's a fact, folks.
It happens.
The question is, does it go any farther
than that?
Does it go into what we call macro
evolution where it changed to a different kind?
Walt Brown in his book in the beginning,
an excellent book, by the way, he says
micro evolution is horizontal.
Macro would be vertical, changing to a different
kind.
Another way to illustrate it.
Dogs probably had a common ancestor.
Even the Great Dane and the Chihuahua probably
had a common ancestor.
I wouldn't question the fact that the dog,
the wolf, and the coyote had a common
ancestor.
But every five-year-old kid knows they're
the same kind of animal.
We had one try it earlier in the
seminar.
We had a dog, a wolf, a coyote,
and a banana.
We asked the five-year-old, which one
is not like the others?
He got it right away.
The banana.
See, the Bible says they bring forth after
their kind.
National Geographic here has an article from wolf
to wolf how the dog evolved from a
wolf.
I don't argue with that.
It probably did.
But it's still the same kind of animal.
Here's Mickey Mouse evolving.
The Bible says they bring forth after their
kind, not after their species.
But this guy says the results of this
and other similar surveys are startling because evolution
has been a settled issue for science, in
science, for nearly 150 years.
They found out that 46% of adults
in the United States do not think humans
had evolved.
Well, you better define what you mean by
evolved.
Right, the majority of folks do not think
they came from a rock 4.6 billion
years ago.
If you want to believe that, that's fine.
I don't care what you believe, but don't
call it science.
Evolution has six different meanings.
First, you'd have to have cosmic evolution, the
origin of time-space matter.
Secondly, you'd have to have chemical evolution.
The hydrogen from the Big Bang would have
to evolve to all 92 elements plus the
synthetic ones.
Then you'd have to have what we call
stellar evolution.
The stars would have to evolve.
And nobody's ever seen a star form.
We see them blow up all the time.
And yet there's enough stars out there that
everybody on planet Earth can own two trillion
of them to yourself.
Those are the ones we know about.
We don't know about the ones we don't
know about.
Then we'd have to have what we call
organic evolution, the origin of life.
Nobody has a clue how life can get
started from non-living material.
We'll cover more on that in the next
session about the origin of life.
Next, they have what's called macro evolution, changing
from one kind of animal into another.
Nobody's ever seen a dog produce a non
-dog.
And lastly, we have variations within the kind
that some people call micro evolution.
Okay, this one happens.
Whatever you call it, it happens.
The first five are purely religious.
But the definition of the word evolution is
really confused for the students on purpose, I
believe.
I think it takes a giant leap of
faith and logic just to go from micro
to macro.
It sure takes a big leap to go
to the other four stages.
Macro evolution is a fantasy based on imagination.
They believe it must have happened, but there's
no evidence for it at all.
Teachers, though, will give the students one definition
of the word to get them to believe
the theory, and then they slowly weed in
the rest of it when they're not looking.
They're going to say, evolution is descent with
modification.
That's deceitful.
That's not really what they mean by evolution.
This textbook says, evolution is change over time.
First definition.
Watch how they change the definition now.
In other words, living things have changed over
time.
Wait a minute.
What happened to the first four stages?
You're going to skip all the way down
to living things and just assume the first
four happened.
Then they say, evolution is a change in
species over time.
Now they jumped right down to what I
believe in.
I believe species can change over time.
I think the changes are limited.
It's still the same kind, but somebody might
call it a different species.
It's still the same kind of animal.
That's not really what they mean by evolution,
folks.
What they really mean is the whole theory
comes as a package deal.
Variations certainly happen, but they have limits.
Haven't the farmers been trying to get bigger
pigs for a long time?
Do you think they'll ever get a pig
as big as Texas?
No, I bet there's a limit in there
someplace in there.
I'm not sure if they reached it or
not, but they're probably getting close to the
limit of pig size.
Roaches eventually become resistant to pesticides.
That's a fact.
Do you think they'll ever become resistant to
a sledgehammer?
No.
I bet there's a limit.
They always still produce the same kind of
plant or animal, too.
No new information is added.
See, real evolution would mean an increase in
genetic complexity, not just shuffling genes that already
exist.
When you have varieties of dogs produced, the
gene pool is more limited for the variety.
The chihuahua is swimming in the shallow end
of the gene pool.
Somebody spent years crossbreeding dogs to develop a
chihuahua.
All that time and money to make a
dog that is 100% useless.
Hey, how long would the chihuahuas last in
the real world?
Turn them all loose back into the woods
and watch what happens.
They'd run up to the wolf.
Yip, yip, yip, yip, yip, yip, yip.
End of gene pool, right?
Genetic information is lost, not added when you
get your variety.
Real evolution would be an increase in genetic
complexity, not just shifting of gene frequency.
Now, I grew up in Illinois, corn country.
Did you know there are so many kinds
of corn down there they have to number
them?
If you're driving down the highway and you'll
see a sign, you know, BX 65.
Don't mix it up with XL 29, something
will explode.
But I'll tell you what, folks, you can
cross-breed corn from now until the cows
come home and you're always going to get
corn.
You're never going to get a hamster or
a tomato or a whale to grow on
your corn stalk, okay?
That ain't going to happen.
There's a variety of dogs in the world,
a whole bunch of them.
And I bet they had a common ancestor,
a dog.
This Irish textbook calls it divergent evolution.
Saying the terrier and the poodle had a
common ancestor?
Oh, come on, don't give it a fancy
name.
It's still a dog.
Don't call it divergent evolution.
It's a variety of dog.
This Mexican textbook says the horse and the
zebra had a common ancestor.
I agree.
Looked like a horse.
Four-wheel drive, genuine leather upholstery, all the
standard equipment, folks.
I mean the horse, right?
And every kid knows they're the same kind
of animal.
They've got little bitty horses available today.
We had the world's smallest horse come visit
us at Dinosaur Adventure Land.
Talk about useless.
Can't ride it.
It won't bark.
No, my granddaughter wrote it.
She thought it was cool.
I don't know if she thought anything.
You know, horses, zebras, and asses can all
be crossbred.
There's some folks in California that wrote me
a letter and said, Brother Hogan, we crossbreed
all sorts of these animals and get some
really strange crossbreeds.
We get Xorces, Zonkeys, Zeones, and Zedonks, and
Shebras.
There's a herd of zebroids running around.
See, the Bible says if they can bring
forth, they're the same kind.
A horse and a zebra can bring forth.
A horse and a hamster cannot.
They're a different kind, okay?
And most cases, the kinds are real recognizable
to anybody with average intelligence.
There might be a few questionable ones in
there.
Okay, I think that's worthy of research.
But the fact that we don't have the
answer to every single one doesn't prove that
everything is related, like the evolutionist says.
You know, in the last 100 years, the
Kentucky Derby has gone from an average winning
speed of 127 down to 123.
Even back in the early days, they had
some low times turned in.
Question.
How much money, would you guess, has been
spent on the Kentucky Derby trying to get
faster racehorses?
Millions and millions and millions of dollars, right?
I don't know if they reached the absolute
limit of horse speed or not.
I suspect they're getting pretty close.
I mean, 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?
My whole point is, sure, variations happen, but
they're limited.
The evolutionist does not want to admit there
are any limits.
And that's where the problem comes in.
There's a variety of cows in the world,
and they might have had a common ancestor.
A cow.
There's a book you can order chickens from.
What kind of chickens do you want to
get, kids?
Do you want to get red rocks, cinnamon
queens, white rocks, cherry eggers, brown leg horns?
There's a lot of different kinds of chickens
you can get.
But look what the book says.
The jungle fowl are the original bird from
which all varieties and strains of domesticated chickens
are derived.
Hey, did you know all the chickens had
a common ancestor?
Guess what it was.
A chicken.
Exactly correct.
There are eight varieties of bears in the
world, and they might have had a common
ancestor.
I wouldn't argue with that.
But it was a bear.
Did you know that broccoli, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower,
and cabbage all came from a common ancestor?
It was a plant.
The Bible says they bring forth after their
kind.
Here's what happened, though.
James Hutton wrote a book, and people began
to doubt the earth was 6,000 years
old.
Then along came Charlie Lyell, and he wrote
a book, and people began to doubt the
flood formed the layers.
Then along came Charlie Darwin, and people began
to doubt the Creator.
And by the mid-1800s, the world was
in kind of a problem because they didn't
think God did it, but they didn't know
how it got here.
So they looked around and said, well, if
God didn't make this place, who's in charge?
It must be us.
That led to the rise of humanism, communism,
Marxism, Nazism, socialism.
It all ties together.
We cover all that on Video 5.
But those same three false teachings are still
in your textbooks today.
The teaching kids, the earth is millions of
years old.
We got here by uniformitarian processes and godless
evolution is how it happened.
Paul said, Timothy, you be careful about science
that is falsely so-called.
Evolution is not science.
Evolution is a religion.
Hitler said, let me control the textbooks and
I'll control the state.
Professor Wilson from Harvard University said, 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 fundamentalist religion.
I left at 17 when I got to
the University of Alabama and heard about evolution
theory.
First year in college destroyed his faith.
I suspect that might be what happened to
Tom Hanks.
I read an article where he was 16
years old when he wrote about how much
he loved the Lord and wanted to serve
him with his life.
What happened, Tom?
I've been praying for Tom a lot.
I'm going to try to get him saved.
I'm sending him some of my videotapes here
soon.
I don't know why I'm burdened for him,
but I just am.
Many people go off to college and lose
their faith.
A friend of mine wrote me a letter
from Iowa.
He said, Brother Hogan, until I went to
college, my faith in God was sound.
My college history class helped to destroy that
faith.
I started to doubt the Bible and God's
word.
I even started to doubt that Jesus was
truly God's son and that he died and
rose from my sins.
My best friend showed me your tapes and
I was in awe of what I saw.
Everything I thought I knew about life was
changed.
Yay!
Rescued one.
But there are millions more than he'd rescued.
There are kids doing homework right now, tonight,
while we're sitting here, and that homework is
destroying their faith.
Seventy-five percent of kids from Christian homes
who go to public schools are going to
lose their faith after one year of college.
What's in these books, anyway?
What are they teaching our kids?
They tell them they've got evidence for evolution.
Here's the evidence they give them.
Evidence from fossils.
Oh, come on.
Anybody with half a brain knows no fossil
counts as evidence for evolution.
None.
You bring some bones into the courtroom.
Your Honor, see these bones right here?
These are the ancestors of everybody today.
Any freshman law student could say, Your Honor,
he doesn't know those bones had any kids
that lived.
And why would you think a bone you
found in the dirt can do something animals
today cannot do?
You know, produce something other than their kind?
Fossils simply don't count, folks.
No fossils count as evidence for evolution.
They say, we've got evidence from structure, molecular
biology, development.
They say, the process of evolution is by
natural selection.
There's no scientific evidence to support evolution except
things that have been proven wrong years ago.
And we're going to cover some of those
here tonight.
Now, if real evidence exists for that theory,
then please show me.
I'm not against scientific evidence.
I am against lying to the kids.
And everything they use to teach that theory
to your kids has been proven to be
a lie.
Evolution is based on two faulty assumptions.
Number one, they say mutations make something new.
That's never been observed.
Number two, they say natural selection makes it
survive and take over the population.
Now, think about this carefully.
If an animal evolves a little better than
the rest, what must happen to the rest
of them in order for this process to
work?
They all have to die.
Or else the good genes get blended back
into the population.
Evolution is a religion of death, not life.
The question is very simple.
Did man bring death into the world like
the Bible says?
Or did death bring man into the world
like evolution says?
They are polar opposite and one of them
is wrong.
This textbook says mutations are the original source
of variation in populations.
Shown by the many varieties of roses available.
I agree.
Probably all the roses are mutants from the
original rose.
I agree with that.
That's not evolution.
That's a variety of rose.
Mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.
Anybody that studies biology knows that.
Pierre Gross believes in evolution, but he says
it doesn't work, folks.
It doesn't happen.
Here's a five-legged bull.
That is a mutation.
Notice he did not get any new information.
Getting an extra leg is not new information.
It's a scrambling of existing information.
Doesn't the bull already have legs?
So it just made one in the wrong
place.
That's all.
Here's a short-legged sheep.
That's a mutant.
No new information is added, though.
That's a loss of information.
And he's the first one the wolf is
going to catch.
Oh, boys, go.
Here comes the wolf.
Oh, Herman didn't make it.
Here's a two-headed turtle.
That's a mutant.
It's not a ninja, but he's a mutant.
He's going to freeze.
First winner.
Because nobody makes a double-necked, turtleneck sweater.
I've never seen one.
See, a mutation is scrambling existing information.
It's not new information.
If you can scramble up the letters to
the word Christmas, you can get all sorts
of different words.
But you're never going to get Xerox, Zebra,
or Queen out of Christmas.
The letters aren't available.
And scrambling existing gene code will not give
you new information.
This textbook shows the kids a four-winged
fly.
Look what it says here now.
Normal fruit flies have two wings.
This mutant has four.
This rare mutation, like most mutations, is harmful.
Watch this carefully.
It says, beneficial mutations are the raw material
for natural selection.
Excuse me, teacher.
Why don't they give an example of a
beneficial mutation?
Why did they show us a bad one
and tell us about the good ones?
You see, beneficial mutations are pure imagination.
They don't exist in reality.
You have to imagine that they happen.
Oh, wow, there must have been a bunch
of them, too.
Nobody ever shows one.
One professor said, I know a beneficial mutation.
I said, what is that, sir?
He said, people in Africa that get sickle
cell anemia are less likely to get malaria.
I said, sir, that is brilliant.
You know, that's like saying if you cut
off your legs, you can't get athlete's foot.
And by the way, that's the one they
always bring out because that's the only one
they've got.
Guarantee, you get into discussion on evolution, ask
somebody for a beneficial mutation.
I guarantee you they'll bring that one up
right there.
That's all they've got.
And that's not beneficial.
Neither sickle cell nor malaria is beneficial.
They say, evolution and natural selection go together.
Oh, yeah.
This one says, natural selection causes evolution.
Oh, it does not.
Natural selection selects.
If I said, I'm going to select everybody
in the room over 12 feet tall to
survive, everybody else dies.
I don't have anybody to select from, do
I?
No.
Natural selection doesn't create.
If I wanted to create a race of
people over 12 feet tall, so I kept
killing everybody under 12 feet tall, how long
would it take to get a race of
people 12 feet tall?
It's never going to do it.
Hello.
Now, the average population today probably ranges from,
say, five feet to six foot six or
something.
I probably could create a population of people
that are all six foot six or maybe
even seven foot.
You know, by continually killing everybody under a
certain point, sure, you can do that.
But you're selecting part of the gene code
that already exists.
You're not creating anything new.
Natural selection is a conservative process.
The creation is thought of at first.
And it's created, it doesn't, it selects, it
doesn't create.
This guy says, natural selection may have a
stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation.
It is not a creative force.
Don't let him tell you it is natural.
Selection is selection, not creation.
Why they don't see this, I don't know.
This textbook says pitches with larger beaks, larger
and stronger beaks were better able to open
the tough pods.
And so they survive evolution by natural selection
had occurred in just one year.
That is pure propaganda.
It's still a bird and it reverted right
back to the same national average.
After the famine or the dry spell went
by.
Part of the population already had the genes
for tougher beaks.
Natural selection does not lead to evolution.
This is a lie.
Natural selection selects.
I'll show you.
If you worked in a factory that made
cars, and your job was quality control, every
car that goes by, your job is to,
you know, see if it runs, slam the
door, kick the tires, whatever you do to
check it.
You don't see if it works.
If you caught every single mistake, they don't,
by the way.
But if you did, how long would it
take that process to change the car to
an airplane?
You say, but you don't understand quality control
doesn't change it.
Oh, I do understand.
Natural selection is like quality control.
It doesn't create a thing.
It makes sure you have a good species,
but it won't change it to something else.
You tell the kids in school, the peppered
moth is evidence for evolution.
Yes, boys and girls, they counted the moths
on the trees.
Must have been a government project.
Instead, it was 95 percent light color and
5 percent black.
Then they tell the kids that the trees
turned black from coal burning factories.
And it was only 5 percent light and
95 percent black around the factories.
The problem is the whole story is a
lie.
Didn't happen.
After 40 years of watching, they found two
moths on the trees.
Two.
In 40 years.
So they glued dead moths to the tree
to take that picture for your kids textbook.
Those are dead moths glued on a tree
trunk.
It's a lie.
The story is a phony.
They still teach it.
That's all they've got.
I think that page ought to be torn
out of the book.
You tell the kids in the Tulsa Zoo,
yes, this is proof for evolution right here.
Proven wrong years ago.
There's a good website, Icons of Evolution, or
the book Icons of Evolution has a whole
lot on it.
Peppered moth.
See, they talk about survival of the fittest.
Well, survival of the fittest does not explain
an arrival of the fittest.
And survival of the fittest, I think, is
what's called a tautology, a sentence that means
nothing.
If you say, Professor, why did it survive?
Oh, because it's the fittest, you know, survival
of the fittest.
Well, how do you know it's the fittest?
Because it survived.
How else can you tell?
Look, folks, if a whale goes through a
school of fish and eats 80% of
them, it's not survival of the fittest.
It's called survival of the luckiest.
That's what really happens out there.
But some of these people make these good
observations and still come to the wrong conclusions.
I don't know if you heard the story,
but there was a bunch of scientists one
day that wanted to see how far a
frog could jump.
They put the big old frog down there
and said, jump, frog, jump.
That frog, he jumped 80 inches.
Wow.
They brought him back, cut off one leg,
said, jump, frog, jump.
He only went 70.
They brought him back, cut off another leg,
said, jump, frog.
He went 60.
They brought him back, cut off another leg,
said, jump, frog.
He went 50.
They brought the frog back, cut off his
last leg, said, jump, frog.
You know, they expected he might go maybe
40 based on the data so far.
Actual jump was zero.
Frog didn't move.
They yelled louder, jump, frog.
Frog didn't move.
They were baffled.
They tried the experiment again.
New frog.
Got the same results every time.
So the brilliant scientists got their data together
and said, folks, you know what?
We can conclude that the frog jumped less
as the legs were removed.
Hey, you have to give them credit, folks.
That is a good observation.
Then they said, but we must conclude that
a frog with no legs goes deaf.
You had a good observation there, fella, but
you blew it with your conclusion.
That's what they did with the fruit flies,
though.
They put them flies in the laboratory and
they nuked them and microwaved them and x
-rayed them and did all sorts of mean
things to those flies and they got all
kinds of mutated flies.
They got flies with curled wings.
They fly around, couldn't go anywhere.
They got flies with no wings.
What do you call that?
Crawl?
Can't fly.
They raised all these mutated flies in the
laboratory and said, folks, you know what?
All the mutations observed produced flies that were
inferior to grandpa fly.
Hey, that's a good observation.
They said, so we must conclude that flies
have evolved as far as they can go.
Jump, frog, jump.
You got a good observation there, but, you
know, maybe you could conclude that God made
them right to begin with and all you're
doing is messing them up in your laboratory.
Yeah.
This guy says flies in the north have
wings four percent larger than flies in the
south.
And that proves evolution.
Who is dumb enough to care?
Then they tell the kids to think critically.
Yes, boys and girls.
Do you think humans are still evolving?
What kind of question is that?
That's one of those questions like, have you
stopped beating your wife yet?
Wow.
Let me think.
If I say yes, I'm admitting I did.
If I say no, I'm still doing it.
Hey, did you know it is possible for
a question to already have a built-in
assumption?
Doesn't their question assume that evolution happened?
I would say, teacher, this question is poorly
written.
It assumes evolution has happened when it has
not.
It's like asking the question, you know, why
are elephants orange?
You know, that's a good question.
Why are they orange anyway?
I don't know.
They're not.
And this question is not designed to make
the students think critically.
Do you think humans are still evolving?
That's a Soviet style, indoctrination type question.
And when the kid gets done with his
course, he's going to think he knows how
to think critically and he doesn't know how
to think at all.
He knows how to be told what to
believe.
That's not education.
That's indoctrination, Soviet style.
They tell the kids, we've got evidence from
structure.
This is called the homology argument.
Yes, boys and girls.
Did you know you've got two bones in
your wrist, radius and ulna?
And did you know the whale has two
bones in his flipper?
And look at this.
They're called radius and ulna.
Right there.
See, that proves we're related.
That's what they tell them.
Look at this.
These homologous structures provide evidence that these animals
evolved from a common ancestor.
Think critically.
A steel flipper and human arm have different
functions.
What evidence might help show that both structures
evolved from a forelimb of a common ancestor?
They show the kids the similar structures.
This is in every biology book I've seen.
This is one of the evidences for evolution.
They call it comparative anatomy.
It says comparative anatomy provides further evidence of
evolution.
The commonality suggests that these and other vertebrate
animals are all related.
They probably evolved from a common ancestor.
This is a lie.
They probably have a common designer.
You know, maybe the same guy designed them
all.
But every textbook around the world, I've got
books from Latvia and Mexico and Russia.
They're all teaching the same thing, folks.
And it's silly.
By the way, those bones develop from different
genes on the chromosomes of these different animals.
They're not homologous.
Similar design might prove the same designer made
them.
Did you know the lug nuts from a
Pontiac will fit on a Chevy?
You can go outside and try it.
It'll work.
That proves they both evolved from a Honda
14 million years ago.
Now look, it's a fact.
It's a good observation when they say many
animals have a similar forelimb structure.
That is a good observation.
I agree.
Then they say they must have had a
common ancestor.
Oh, I disagree.
This helps prove we all came from a
rock.
Oh, jump frog, jump.
Then they say we've got evidence from development.
This one makes me angry, so I'm going
to stay calm.
We're going to do this in just a
few more minutes and then we're going to
quit.
This book says the similarity between early stages
in development helped convince Darwin that all forms
of life shared common ancestors.
Darwin considered this by far the strongest piece
of facts in favor of his theory.
Haeckel called it the biogenetic law.
A guy named Ernst Haeckel made up the
idea that all the embryos of different animals
develop through the same stages.
Fish, amphibian, reptile, mammal.
He called it the biogenetic law.
This textbook says the presence of fish-like
structures in the embryos of different species shows
that these animals have evolved from fish and
share the basic pattern of fish development.
Does the human embryo have gills like a
fish?
That's what the textbook says.
This is a lie.
Those are not gills.
Those are the folds of skin that develop
into bones in the ear and glands in
the throat.
They never have anything to do with breathing.
I've seen people that have five or six
chins and they can't breathe through any of
them but the top one.
Ernst Haeckel, the German professor from Jena University,
made up this entire dumb idea in 1869.
Darwin's book came out in 1859.
The next year it was translated to German.
Haeckel read the book and said, wow, what
a great theory.
If only we had some evidence.
Nine years later, they still had no evidence.
So Haeckel decided to make some.
He was an embryology professor.
He taught how embryos develop.
So he took a drawing of a dog
and a human embryo and changed them.
Made them look just alike.
And said, see, this proves we have a
common ancestor with dogs.
Well, nobody caught on or stopped him so
he did a bunch more.
He took drawings of all kinds of different
animals and faked them.
And he made them all look very, very
similar.
Haeckel made giant posters of his fake drawings
and traveled all over Germany and told everybody
you ought to believe this new theory because
we've got the proof right here.
After all, he's a professor of embryology.
He wouldn't lie, would he?
And how many folks back then had microscopes
to check him out?
We're talking creatures about this big, you know.
Haeckel just about single-handedly converted the Germans
to believing in evolution.
Which led to the obvious conclusion, hey, if
evolution is true, then maybe one race has
evolved farther than the rest.
I wonder who it is.
Must be the Germans.
We'll see where that led.
Take five.
On top are Haeckel's fake drawings.
Underneath are actual photographs of what he claims
he's drawing a picture of.
Haeckel lied deliberately.
His own university held a trial and convicted
him in 1875.
He said, I shouldn't feel utterly condemned except
hundreds of biologists lie under the same charge.
Everybody else lies so it's okay for me
to lie too.
Haeckel's biogenetic law is as dead as a
doornail, folks.
It's not true.
It never was true.
Proven wrong, 1875.
It's not true.
He was convicted of fraud.
His own university held a trial and convicted
one of their own professors of lying.
But his drawings are still used in textbooks
in your county tonight.
Proven wrong 125 years ago.
Darwin wrote his book, 1859.
He predicted evidence would be found.
1869, Haeckel faked the drawings.
1875, he was convicted of lying.
But his drawings are still in textbooks 125
years later.
Now I know it takes a while for
textbooks to get up to date, but I
think 125 years is long enough.
They're still teaching this stuff in textbooks all
over the world.
This one says, proof of evolution from a
common ancestor because of the gill slits on
the human.
This is simply a lie.
Here's a year 2000 textbook teaching it.
2001, junior high textbook.
The similarities provide evidence that these three animals
evolved from a common ancestor.
What similarities, teacher?
Don't you see they have tiny gill slits?
Folks, this is a lie.
Why are we still teaching this to our
kids?
Here's a 2000 college textbook.
Similar humans and fish embryos resemble each other
because humans and fish share a common ancestor.
This college textbook says the human has gill
pouches.
Biology, arms and camp, one of the worst
ones there is, shows a 5-6 week
embryo, but then it says by 7 months
the fetus looks like a tiny normal baby,
but it's not.
It's not a baby at 7 months.
Hello?
It's a human at conception.
Every doctor knows that.
34% of babies born at 5 1⁄2
months are going to survive.
Have you heard about the lady that had
surgery on her baby before it was born?
They cut the mother open, cut the uterus
open, and there's the baby holding the doctor's
finger 5 months along.
Let's see.
The angel of the Lord said, Behold, thou
art with fetus.
No, I believe he said you are with
child, didn't he?
Hey, did you know it's a child before
it's born?
God knows that.
Get more on the embryology lie in the
book Icons of Evolution.
Why do they keep this in the textbooks?
That's the only way to justify abortion.
They want you to think it's just a
fish or an amphibian.
You're not killing a child.
You're killing a fish.
That's why it's in the books, folks.
Somebody wants to reduce the population of our
planet.
His name is Satan.
We'll cover more on that on video number
5 about the effects of this evolution teaching.
I live in Pensacola.
You might have heard of my town.
We've had two doctors killed that were doing
abortions.
Several clinics blown up or burned down.
I didn't shoot any doctors and I didn't
blow up any clinics.
I don't think Jesus would do it that
way either.
He grew up under Roman control.
He didn't go around blowing up tanks and
burning down bridges.
But the doctors were murderers, plain and simple.
When the first doctor got shot, I happened
to be preaching in Fort Lauderdale.
The next day I was flying home.
Right in front of me on the airplane
were two women from NOW, National Organization for
Wild Women.
They were upset.
They were going to go march around Pensacola
protesting this doctor getting shot.
Dr. Gunn.
As we got off the plane, I noticed
on their shirt they had in huge block
letters CHOICE ABOVE ALL.
So, being my mild-mannered self, I said,
excuse me, ma'am, what does this mean,
choice above all?
She said, we believe a woman ought to
have a right to choose.
I said, choose what?
She said, choose to have an abortion.
It's her body, you know.
Well, yes, ma'am.
If she wants to abort her body, I
suppose that's fine.
But it looks to me like she wants
to abort somebody else's body.
You know, when you consider half of them
are male, it's not her body.
Think about it.
I said, ma'am, I'm kind of curious
about this.
I have three kids, one of each.
I delivered one of my kids at home.
I taught biology and anatomy.
I used to raise hamsters.
I'm kind of familiar with how this works.
I said, tell me, why does the woman's
right to choice stop at birth?
Why don't we let the mother kill the
baby after it's born?
It'd be a lot safer and simpler.
By the way, that's what Peter Singer wants.
He's pushing for abortions up until the kid's
28 days old.
You can decide if you want to keep
it or not.
Coming soon, folks.
You watch for that one.
I said, why don't we...
I got an idea.
Let's extend abortion rights up until the kid's
two years old.
I know a lot of mothers with a
two-year-old that have thought about it
a time or two.
I won't ask you to raise your hand,
but I know you're out there.
Hey, let's extend abortion rights up until the
kid is 18.
I bet they'd behave a lot better.
All right, son.
One more time, and I'm going to abort
you.
Hey, teacher, where's Johnny today?
Oh, he didn't do his homework yesterday, so
his mommy aborted him.
Hey, Grayswood Skyrocket, folks.
Well, the ladies didn't want to talk about
it anymore, I guess, because they left, and
so I went and got my luggage, and
I'm waiting, talking to a cameraman.
He showed up from Chicago to film this
rally.
I thought, now, wait a minute.
There's going to be six people march around
town.
It's going to make worldwide news.
You can get 100,000 people to line
your streets against abortion, and it won't make
the news.
Have you noticed that?
You know, the news media calls them pro
-choice, and they call guys like me anti
-abortion.
Anti is a negative term.
Pro is a positive term.
It's called slanted journalism.
That's one of the reasons I refuse to
take the local paper.
We get a call once in a while.
Hey, you want to take the local paper?
I say, no, ma'am, we don't have
a parakeet.
That's what I tell them.
The news media always slants it to the
liberal cause.
Probably because they're just about all getting owned
by a few people now, the Gannett Press
and these guys.
But when the kids got shot in Colorado,
right away, they jumped on the gun control
issue.
Did you notice that?
Look, if kids keep getting shot in our
schools, maybe there are some other issues to
discuss, like should we have public schools?
Or should we teach them evolution?
That's what caused the shooting at Columbine.
The boys made a tape before the shooting.
They said, he doesn't deserve the jaw evolution
gave him.
Look for his jaw.
It won't be on his body.
They did the shooting on Hitler's birthday on
purpose.
They shot Isaiah because he was black.
Eric's T-shirt said natural selection.
We'll cover more on that on video number
five.
And then Rosie got on her program.
Rosie O'Donnell said, see, we need more gun
control.
Rosie, they broke 18 gun laws going into
that school.
Two more gun laws would not have stopped
him.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his van.
He said, layman guns for Columbine is like
layman spoons for Rosie O'Donnell being fat.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his
van.
I like what
that
guy put on his tire cover on his
van.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his van.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his van.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his van.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his van.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his van.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his van.
on his tire cover on his van.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his van.
I like what that guy put
on
his tire cover on
his van.
on his tire cover on his van.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his van.
I like what that guy put on his
tire cover on his van.
on his tire cover on
his van.
Now, you listen carefully.
God loves you and can forgive you and
it's not a problem.
I mean, half the Bible is written by
murderers.
You don't have to go on for the
rest of your life, you know, trying to
justify it.
Just admit it.
Confess it.
Say, Lord, I'm sorry.
Forgive me.
And go on and do something for God
with your life.
Okay?
Quit your whining and go serve God.
They're going to say the child may be
a financial burden.
Show me a kid that's not.
Every kid's a financial burden.
Come on.
They're going to say it might be from
rape or incest.
Well, then you kill the rapist, not the
baby.
I mentioned this in a seminar one time
and this medical doctor was there and during
question and answer, he said, Dr. Holman, suppose
a woman is raped and gets pregnant.
Are you saying she should be required to
carry that baby?
I said, well, sir, that's a that's a
tough scenario, but let's suppose it happens.
Let me ask you a question.
Suppose she gets raped, she gets pregnant, she
has the baby.
Five years later, she's holding her five year
old and her mind flashes back to the
horrible experience and she kills the baby.
Is it murder?
He said, yeah, I said, OK, suppose she
would have killed it five months after it
was born.
Would that have been murder?
He said, yeah, I said, suppose she would
have killed it five minutes after it was
born.
Would that have been murder?
He got kind of quiet.
You could see where I was going.
I said, let me help you, sir.
Yes.
I said, now, suppose you would have killed
it five minutes before it was born.
Folks, rape's horrible.
So is murder.
Let's start killing rapists and put an end
to this thing.
OK?
Yeah.
Hey, is it illegal in Wisconsin to shoot
deer at night with spotlights?
It is, isn't it?
You have to give them a sporting chance,
right?
Why don't you pass a law up here
that says we're going to give the baby
a sporting chance.
If a woman goes to have an abortion,
the nurse there will have a jar of
marbles to have a lottery to decide if
she's going to give the baby a sporting
chance.
One marble for 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.
Question.
If he's not alive, why is he growing?
If he's not a human being, what kind
of being is he anyway?
This woman says, honk if you're pro-choice.
Yeah, it's easy for her to be pro
-choice.
She's already been born.
Did you know everybody that ever voted for
abortion has already been born?
You ever think about that?
Let's let the babies that aren't born vote
on it and see what they say.
They're going to say abortion is legal.
That doesn't make it right.
You know, 1936, the German Supreme Court declared
Jews are not persons.
That was the decision that opened the way
for Jews to be murdered.
After all, they're not a person, so you
can't be guilty of murder when you kill
one.
I've been to Germany three times.
I read lots of books about Hitler and
the Holocaust just to keep my blood boiling.
Hitler did what he did because of his
belief in evolution.
He thought he was helping out.
He thought the Germans were the superior race.
They deserve to rule the world.
Hitler wanted to make the practice of Germany
conform to the theory of evolution.
Hitler offered to send the Jews to anybody
who would take them.
You know, Roosevelt refused to let the Jews
come to America in 1938.
They could have been saved, folks.
Our president wouldn't let them come.
Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, showed his evolutionary thinking,
which he had probably since he was a
boy.
This guy says evolutionary ideas lie at the
basis of all that is worst in Mein
Kampf.
Hitler said it was the duty of the
strong to trample the weak.
He said, I have the right to exterminate
an inferior race that breed like the vermin.
Hitler singled out the idea of biological evolution
as the most forced weapon against traditional religion.
See, traditional religion, like Christianity, says nobody's better
because of the color of their skin.
Hitler didn't like that idea.
He said nature doesn't like the blending of
the higher with the lower race.
He kept talking about Aryan blood and lower
peoples.
Who's a lower people, Adolf?
Well, I found Hitler's hit list.
I read lots of books about Hitler.
Hitler thought the blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegians
were close to pure Aryan, the superior race.
Did you follow all that?
Blond-haired, blue-eyed, Norwegian.
Ah, gosh, where you at?
Hey there, fella.
He thought the Germans were mostly Aryan.
The Mediterranean's are slightly Aryan.
The Slavics are half Aryan, half ape.
Orientals are slightly ape.
Black Africans, mostly ape.
Jews, close to pure ape.
Hitler killed the Jews because of his belief
in evolution.
He was trying to speed up the process,
to help humanity out.
Get rid of the inferiors.
Hitler also hated black people.
Now, does anybody know where the Olympics were
held in 1936?
Germany.
Does anybody know who won the most gold
medals?
Jesse Owens, the black American athlete.
Hitler was so angry, he walked out of
the stadium and said, It's not fair to
make my men race against this animal.
Hitler said, I think Christianity is the most
fatal, seductive lie that ever existed.
Because Christianity teaches, God hath made of one
blood all nations of men to dwell on
the earth.
Now, if you think you are superior to
somebody because of the color of your skin,
Number one, you're wrong.
Number two, you're stupid.
Number three, you're not right with God.
And I preached this same message in Georgia
and Alabama and Mississippi.
And I would preach it to the KKK.
You're wrong.
I stood in the courtroom in Nuremberg where
the trial was held.
Those guys, 50 years ago, said, We did
nothing illegal, we're just obeying orders.
Yep, and they were found guilty of murder,
weren't they?
And just because our Supreme Court said, The
unborn child is not a human, not a
person.
That was the decision.
1973, Roe versus Wade.
I don't care what the Supreme Court said,
It's a person, it's a human at conception.
But since that decision, we've now had 40
million babies killed by abortion in America.
A billion worldwide.
A thousand million.
On September 11th, 2001, 3,000 Americans were
killed by terrorists.
Our government spent millions of dollars trying to
hunt them down and kill them.
Right?
You know what else happened on September 11th,
2001?
4,500 Americans were killed by abortion.
Nobody said a word.
It happened again on September 12th and September
13th and the 14th and the 15th.
And every day since then, it's going to
happen again tomorrow.
What are we doing, folks?
Are we nuts?
Margaret Sanger started a group called Planned Parenthood.
The purpose of Planned Parenthood was to eliminate
the inferior species.
She thought the Jews, Orientals, and Blacks were
human weeds.
We could spend hours on Margaret Sanger.
Get our videotape college class, CLC 103, I
believe, where we cover this.
Planned Parenthood published a document in 1952 where
they said, What is an abortion?
Is it an operation?
No, it's not an operation.
What is child planning, they called it.
How to plan your children.
Birth control.
Is it an abortion?
They said, definitely not.
An abortion requires an operation.
It kills the life of a baby after
it has begun.
Boy, Planned Parenthood changed their tune in the
last 40 years, haven't they?
The Bible says, These six things doth the
Lord hate.
Hands that shed innocent blood.
Perseverance that taketh reward shed innocent blood.
And all the people shall say, Amen.
The kids are going to be told in
school that your appendix is vestigial.
You don't need it anymore.
Oh, that's a lie.
Your appendix is part of your immune system.
You do need your appendix.
It's true you can live without your appendix,
but you're going to have a greater chance
of quite a few diseases.
Just because you can live without something doesn't
mean you don't need it.
You can live without both your legs and
both your arms and both your eyes.
It doesn't prove you don't need it.
This one tells the kids, The whale has
a vestigial pelvis.
It says, Many organisms retain traces of their
evolutionary history.
For example, The whale retains pelvic and leg
bones as useless vestiges.
What's this talking about?
The National Center for Science Education.
All four of them working in this little
storefront building call themselves the National Center.
You know, big name, little bitty building right
there in Berkeley, California.
They say, Bossy, the cow, evolved to the
whale.
Really?
Wow.
I debated Jeannie Scott on the radio for
30 minutes.
I got to speak for three of the
30 minutes.
I'll be glad to debate her again anytime.
She won't do it anymore.
Andrew Carnegie started this group that she's the
president of purposely to keep evolution out of
schools.
That's why they exist.
But the cow did not evolve to the
whale.
This textbook says, The whale has a pelvis
that has no purpose.
They have hind limb bones that have no
function.
Hope Biology, 2001.
Just imagine whales walking around.
It's true.
What are they talking about?
They're talking about those little tiny bones right
there.
Just imagine the whale walking around.
You know, I tried, and I can't imagine.
It says, The whale's pelvis has no function.
Hmm.
The whale's pelvis is evidence of its four
-legged, having a four-legged land-dwelling mammal
as an ancestor.
Oh, come on.
This is a lie.
Those little bones are part of the whale's
reproductive system.
Whales are pretty big, you know.
That supports different muscles.
The whales cannot reproduce without those little bones.
It has nothing to do with walking on
land.
It has to do with getting baby whales.
So the guys that are writing this are
real, real ignorant about whale anatomy, or they're
lying to your kids, trying to make them
believe a theory.
There are no vestigial organs.
And if there were, that would be the
opposite of evolution.
The whale did not evolve from any kind
of other animal.
It did not descend from the first whale
that God made.
You know, the Ambulocetus here, only the dark
bones were actually found.
But they can make up all kinds of
stories from a few little bones.
We can talk for hours on whale evolution.
We cover more of this on our college
class, or get ahold of me later if
you want a whole lot more on the
whale evolution.
It's just simply baloney.
We have in our museum a 15 1⁄2
-foot python snake skin.
Way down near the south end of that
snake, you'll see little tiny claws.
There they are, right there.
Little bitty claws.
With a little bone inside.
Now look what this textbook says.
Snakes have rudimentary hind legs.
Excuse me.
Those are not hind legs.
Those little claws are used during mating.
Snakes don't have any arms, you know.
And they can't talk and say, Scoot over,
honey.
OK?
It's got nothing to do with walking on
land.
OK?
It has to do with getting baby snakes.
Now, these guys ought to quit lying to
the kids.
This one says, Humans have a tailbone that
is of no apparent use.
I was in a debate with the president
of the North Alabama Atheist Association.
He got up in front of God and
everybody.
He said, Folks, we got proof for evolution.
Humans have a tailbone they no longer need.
I said, Mr. Patterson, I taught biology and
anatomy.
I happen to know there are nine little
muscles that attach to the tailbone, without which
you cannot perform some valuable functions.
I won't tell you what they all are,
but trust me, you need those muscles.
I said, Now, if you believe the tailbone
is vestigial, I will pay to have yours
removed.
Hand over.
This textbook says, The coccyx, the tailbone, is
a small bone at the end of the
human vertebral column.
It has no present function.
And it's thought to be the remainder of
bones that once occupied the long tail of
a tree-living ancestor.
They told me when I was a kid,
Man, he used to have a tail, but
he lost it because he didn't need it.
That was the teaching that started me believing
in evolution when I was about nine years
old.
And later I thought, Wait a minute.
Lost it?
Because we didn't need it.
Have you ever thought how handy a tail
would be?
Have you ever come to the door with
two sacks of groceries?
Man, you could open that door right up
and walk right in there.
You could drive down the highway and hold
that can of Coke and tune that radio
knob all at the same time.
Lost it because we didn't need it.
Come on.
That's a lie.
We've been offering a quarter million dollars for
a long time for anybody with any real
evidence for evolution.
If you've got some, show me.
But quit lying to the kids.
I tell people, Those lies ought to be
torn out of your book.
I was in a debate one time and
I mentioned, Look, that page ought to be
torn out.
It's not true.
The one professor when I got done said,
Now, Hovind, I don't think we should deface
textbooks.
I said, Well, sir, If you were teaching
math and you came across a book that
said 2 plus 2 is 5, what would
you do?
He said, Oh, I tell my students to
mark off the wrong answer and write in
the right answer.
You would deface a textbook?
I said, Now, sir, if you came across
a biology book and you do teach biology
and the book said the embryo has gill
slits, you know it's not true and it
says the tailbone's vestigial, you know that's not
true and the whale's got a vestigial pelvis,
you know that's not true.
What are you going to tell your students?
He said, Well, nothing.
I said, You're not going to warn them
it's not true?
You're not going to tell them to tear
the page out or you just mark it
out?
Oh, no, no, no.
I said, Then you, sir, are hypocrite and
you've got no business using tax dollars to
spread these lies in our textbooks to these
next generation of kids.
You ought to get an honest job picking
features or changing tires and quit lying to
the kids.
My humble unbiased opinion.
Everything used to support evolution theory has been
proven wrong.
I'm sick of paying for the kids to
get lied to.
The red states on the chart show how
the atheists rate the states on how well
they teach evolution.
But look, I don't care if you teach
evolution or not.
Just don't use lies to support the theory.
And that's all they're doing so far is
lying to your kids.
And some people think I should be more
politically correct and call it, you know, misrepresentation.
Some big word the kids won't understand.
I like the word lie.
The Bible says they use great plainness of
speech.
That's real plain, okay?
They're lying to your kids.
God created the world in six days, the
Bible says very clearly.
The textbook says it's over billions of years
the world got here.
Somebody is clearly wrong.
And I like showing them who they are.
So that's what we're here for tonight.
The Bible says, cease, my son, to hear
the instruction that causeth thee to err from
the words of knowledge.
The Bible says God created all things, Revelation
chapter 4.
Heaven is my throne, earth my footstool, God
said.
Hath not my hand made all these things?
The Bible's real clear that God made the
world.
The Bible says He formed the I.
Charles Darwin said in his book, To suppose
that the I could have been formed by
natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd.
How can blind chance make a seeing eye?
After saying this, Darwin went on for the
next couple of pages to try to explain
how he thought it might have happened.
Anyway, he still believed it, but he said
it was clearly absurd.
The back of your eyeball is about one
square inch, and yet it contains 137 million
light-sensitive cells.
How would you like to be the electrician
to hook up 137 million connections in one
square inch?
My Heavenly Father did.
He's pretty smart, ain't he?
I got a call from an atheist one
time.
Actually, he did a debate on the radio.
He said, Hovind, you're dumb.
He said, don't you know the eye is
an example of poor design?
I said, really?
He said, yeah, it's wired backwards.
He said the blood vessels are in front
of the retina, and the light coming through
has to go through the blood vessels to
hit the retina, and it blocks out some
of the light.
He said the octopus has a much better
eye because their blood vessels are behind the
retina.
I said, well, sir, let me explain a
couple things to you.
I said, we live in the air.
Air does not block UV light very well,
and UV light will destroy your retina.
So, you have blood vessels in front of
your retina to block the UV light.
Now, octopus live in the water.
Water blocks UV light.
So, they don't need the blood vessels in
front.
They can actually see better underwater than you
could, but if you want to swap eyes
with an octopus, go ahead, because in a
few days, you're going to be blind.
So, we are designed just fine for living
in the air, and they are designed just
fine for living in the water.
I said, do you have any other dumb
questions?
He said, no, that was it.
I hung up.
What they're trying to say is God wouldn't
have done it that way, so it must
have evolved.
That's a dumb argument for evolution.
Arguing against creation is not proof for evolution.
You know, they say it would take 100
years of Cray computer time to simulate what
takes place in your eye many times every
second.
You can walk into the room and look
around, and in one second, your eyeball picks
up enough data to keep a Cray busy
for hundreds of years, sorting out what you
just saw in one second.
This textbook, though, says, the complex structure of
the human eye may be the product of
millions of years of evolution.
Why doesn't God get the glory for what
he made, huh?
This textbook shows two different types of animals'
eyes, and it says, boys and girls, you
can better understand how the eye might have
evolved if you picture a series of changes.
In other words, you have to imagine how
it happened.
That's because we never really observe it.
You just imagine that it happened.
That's not science, folks.
You can imagine all you want, but that's
not observable, testable, demonstrable.
It's a lie.
The eye is far too complex to have
evolved from anything.
It had to be designed.
The Bible says, God formed the eye.
That's the only way I can explain it.
Somebody extremely smart had to make it.
Science deals with things we can observe and
test and study and demonstrate.
Most Americans do not believe the Earth is
millions of years old.
Most of them believe God did it.
If you want to believe otherwise, you just
enjoy yourself, but you're in the minority, and
you ought to go start a private school
and teach it with your own tax dollars
or with your own money.
Don't use my money to teach your religion
in our school system.
Okay, if something is designed, like the eyeball
or anything else, it demands there was a
designer.
If you find a painting, that is evidence
there was a painter.
If you find a building, that is evidence
there was a builder.
If you find a watch, that's evidence there
was a watchmaker.
If you see a creation, that's evidence of
a creator.
Whether you ever meet him or not doesn't
matter.
Design demands a designer.
The Bible says, The invisible things of him
from the creation of the world are clearly
seen.
They are without excuse.
But they became vain in their imaginations, and
their foolish heart was darkened.
They didn't want to glorify God, so they
chose to believe the obviously silly idea that
we all came from a rock.
The psalmist said, When I consider thy heavens.
See, Satan knows anybody that really studies science
with an open mind is going to be
drawn to the creator.
And he's worked really hard in the field
of science to draw people away from the
creator.
That's why he's worked in that field particularly
hard.
I'd like to show this picture to evolutionists,
and I'll say, fellas, this is, as far
as I know, you know, Mount Rushmore, this
is the world's largest rock group.
Hey, if you know of a bigger one,
I'd like to see it, okay?
But that's the biggest one I've seen.
I say, fellas, do you think there's any
possible way these faces could have appeared on
the rock by chance?
Do you think the wind could have done
that by abrasion, or exfoliation, or thermal expansion
of the rock, or erosion?
You know, what caused these faces to appear
on the rock?
They'll say, well, Mr. Hovind, these were designed
by a guy named Borglum.
It took him a long time to make
it.
I say, okay, now let me ask you
a question.
Do you believe George Washington himself is a
product of chance over billions of years?
They'll say yes.
I say, wait a minute.
You don't think his face could appear on
a rock, but you do think his whole
complex anatomy with 50 trillion cells could happen
by chance?
Are you dumb in any other area?
Or is that the only one?
It had to be designed.
But see, they avoid using the word designed
in textbooks.
Watch this carefully.
They say, boys and girls, notice how plants
are adapted to their environment.
They say gills are an adaptation to living
in water.
Why don't they say designed?
By the way, how did the fish live
before they adapted the gills?
Oh, well, you see, for millions of years,
none of them lived.
They all died.
Oh, that'll work.
Yeah, that'll work.
They avoid that word designed because then some
kid's gonna say, who's the designer?
And that might bring up an embarrassing situation
in class, so let's just avoid using the
word designed.
Look, I have a Casio databank stopwatch.
It holds 300 phone numbers.
It's a calculator, a stopwatch, an alarm clock,
and a countdown timer.
It does not tell time.
You have to look at it.
But it's an amazing machine.
70 bucks at Walmart.
I was in Japan only one time, but
I never did see the guy who made
the Casio databank stopwatch.
But I suspect there is a guy who
made it.
Is it logical for me to stand here
in Wisconsin and say, I believe there's a
designer for this watch, even though I've never
met him?
I mean, is that logical?
Sure.
Now, is it logical for me to stand
here and say, you know, I never seen
the guy who made this.
Therefore, he doesn't exist.
That's not logical, is it?
Some people look at the world around them
and say, you know, I can't see God
who made it.
Therefore, he doesn't exist.
Hello.
You better think about that.
You don't have to see the designer to
believe he exists.
The design demands a designer.
It's interesting that evolutionists argue against design using
arguments they designed.
One guy wrote a whole book called The
Blind Watchmaker.
He said it could have happened over billions
of years.
Why'd you write a book about it then?
Why don't you throw a bunch of ink
out in a paper and see if it
made your book?
Michael Beatty's got a great book showing the
complexity of nature, how it simply could not
have survived.
It could not have happened by chance.
He's a microbiologist, and he teaches at Lehigh
University in Pennsylvania.
He spends an entire chapter of the book
explaining the hair on a bacteria.
That little hair is attached to a motor
in the skin of the bacteria.
You talk about tiny.
I mean, bacteria is pretty tiny.
These are real tiny little motors.
These motors are so tiny that 8 million
of them would fit in the cross-section
of a human hair.
And that motor turns 100,000 rpm.
I've done a lot of automotive work in
my time.
I've rebuilt a few motors.
How would you like to have a motor
that turns 100,000 rpm?
The guy who's third in the nation racing
motorcycles got saved in my seminar one time.
A couple of years later, I was preaching
up there in Connecticut.
He said, hey, Brother Holman, let me take
you to breakfast tomorrow and let you test
drive one of my bikes.
I said, OK.
I like motorcycles.
We went for breakfast.
He got up to his van.
He pulled out of the trailer behind his
van a Honda 900.
It had been blue-printed and bored and
stoked and balanced.
I don't know what all they did to
it, but it was not the normal Honda
900.
He said, take it for a spin, Brother
Holman.
I said, OK.
Redline's about 14,000 or 15,000 rpm.
I cranked it up.
Boom.
I thought, oh, this is not normal.
Put it in first gear and let out
the clutch.
Boom.
Almost broke my neck.
I took off down the road.
I shifted into second gear.
Boom.
Almost broke my neck again.
I was just about to go to third,
and I glanced down and realized I'm going
90 in second gear, and it has six
gears.
I wound it down, brought it back, shaking
like a leaf.
See, I have a Honda moped.
That weren't no moped.
I said, man, how fast does it go?
He said, I don't know.
Oh, brother.
I said, they don't make Band-Aids big
enough.
I said, what's the fastest you've ever fallen
off?
He said, 120.
I said, what's it like to fall off
at 120?
He said, well, it gets hot.
You got to keep turning your body because
that spot gets hot sliding across the blacktop.
Oh, yeah.
That was only like 14,000 rpm.
This bacteria's motor turns 100,000 rpm forwards
or backwards.
Amazing.
That little bacteria can swim through his little
world, the equivalent of a person swimming 60
miles an hour through peanut butter.
Because the smaller you get, the greater the
viscosity problem becomes.
Now, this textbook says humans probably evolved from
bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years
ago.
Folks, they can swim 60 miles an hour.
The fastest humans can go about 4 or
5 miles an hour.
If you water.
You can sign these guys up for the
Olympics, man.
We're getting worse, not better.
Bacteria are incredibly complex.
Complexity demands a designer whether you like it
or not.
They tell the kids, yes, life evolved from
non-living material.
Look at this one.
Bible says God created the living creature.
Textbook says the history of life began on
Earth 3.5 billion years ago.
How this occurred has been and will continue
to be a topic for inquiry.
Let me give you the Hoban translation.
It's OK to inquire how life evolved.
It is not OK to inquire if life
evolved.
That's what they're trying to say to the
kids, isn't it?
Hey, kids, it's OK to do research on
how we evolved.
But don't you dare question the fact that
we did evolve.
Not only can kids not pray in school,
they can't even think in school anymore.
Miller and Urey wanted to know how the
Earth and solar system had come to be.
So they made an experiment 50 years ago.
It said he never proved how life originated.
But he did add evidence to the theory
that life could have started by itself.
This is a lie.
Miller and Urey's experiment and everybody's since then
has made the problem much worse.
See, Darwin thought a cell in your body
was a little simple sack of jelly.
Now we know cells are incredibly complex.
And life could not have started by chance.
The origin of species was not addressed in
1859 and is still a mystery in 1998.
Both the origin of life and the origin
of major groups of animals remains unknown.
They don't know how life got started.
But the textbooks will tell the kids.
Life got started from non-living material.
This one says, many important events occurred during
the Archean era, the most important of which
was the evolution of life.
Progress from complex molecules to the simplest living
organism was a very long process.
Oh yeah, let's put time in there, that'll
help.
This textbook says the first self-replicating or
first living cells emerged between 4 billion and
3.8 billion years ago.
There is no record of the event.
We know what happened, kids, and you're going
to be tested on this, but there's no
proof.
He says the first self-replicating systems must
have emerged in this organic soup.
That's a lie.
There's no proof from any field of science
of how life got started from non-living
material.
If you want to believe it evolved, you
just enjoy yourself, but don't call it science
and don't tell people you know how it
happened.
Nobody does.
Haeckel, during his confession at the University of
Jena, said, the spontaneous generation must be true,
not because it had been proven in the
laboratory, but because otherwise it would be necessary
to believe in a creator.
You're right about that, Ernie.
Must have been a creator.
So a question, have scientists really produced life
in the laboratory?
Here's the experiment they did.
Miller and Urey took gases, they took methane,
ammonia, water vapor, and hydrogen, circulated them through
some glass tubes and ran a spark in
there, to say this is like lightning.
At the bottom some red goo developed, and
so they filtered it off and saved all
the red goo at the bottom of the
flask.
They said the goo was rich in amino
acids.
This is a lie, OK?
It was not rich in amino acids.
It's interesting to notice they excluded oxygen from
the experiment.
They didn't want any oxygen in there because
they knew if they had oxygen, anything they
created would oxidize.
You know, you've got the banana open, lay
it on the table, it turns brown, it
oxidizes.
If you don't paint your car, it oxidizes,
it's called rust.
They didn't want any oxygen there because it
would destroy any life that evolved.
The problem is, if you don't have oxygen,
you can't have ozone.
And ozone blocks UV light, and UV light
destroys ammonia.
And ammonia is one of the gases.
So if you don't have oxygen, life can't
evolve.
And if you do have oxygen, life can't
evolve.
Got a real serious problem here.
And by the way, the earth has always
had oxygen.
Even if you believe the dumb geologic column,
the lowest layers have oxygen.
This guy says, what is the evidence for
a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere?
The answer is there is no evidence for
it and much against it.
In general, we find no evidence in the
sedimentary distribution of the rocks of oxygen-free
atmosphere.
Don't let them tell you that's true.
But this textbook says, yes, boys and girls,
back when there was no oxygen, 0%
oxygen, the rocks absorbed it.
Say what?
There was no oxygen, but the rocks absorbed
it.
The cheese done fell out of their sandwich,
man.
I'm telling you, that elevator don't go all
the way to the top.
And in 2 billion years after the origin
of life, there was enough oxygen to support
the eukaryotes.
Oh, ah, slowly evolved to today.
This is pure propaganda.
What Miller did in his experiment, and Urey,
and everybody since, they filter out the product
they produce.
This is not realistic for nature.
What they actually made was 85% tar,
13% carboxylic acid.
Both of those are toxic to life.
Now, if you make an experiment that's 98
% poisonous to the other 2% you're
trying to make, would you say that's a
success?
Actually, what he generally made was two amino
acids.
There are 20 necessary for life.
He made basically two in a poisonous mixture.
He filtered out the product.
That's not realistic.
He made this amino acid, but they will
bond with the water and the tar and
the acid much quicker than they will bond
with each other.
Amino acids are sort of like letters of
the alphabet.
You know, there are 26 letters in the
English alphabet.
With combining those 26, you can make all
kinds of words.
If you get them in the right order.
You can also just drop letters and make
a whole bunch of nonsense stuff too, you
know.
He made a few amino acids.
It's like making a few letters of the
alphabet.
There are 20 amino acids required to make
proteins.
He just made a few of them.
These amino acids are like letters.
It takes a bunch of them to make
paragraphs.
It takes a whole bunch of them to
make a book.
And to make one living cell takes trillions
of these amino acids in precise order.
Half of what he made was right-handed.
Half were left-handed amino acids.
This creates a real problem because the smallest
proteins have about 70 to 100.
Maybe there's one less.
I don't know.
But all are left-handed.
The smallest DNA and RNA all have right
-handed.
It's called the chirality.
He made a mixture.
It's not going to work.
They will unbond in water much faster than
they bond.
And as far as anybody knows, the oceans
are completely full of water.
And Brownian motion is going to drive them
apart, not bring them together.
The experiment was a fraud.
It's a lie.
It's a fake.
It didn't work.
Don't let them tell you they made life
in the laboratory because they never came close.
Somehow they get this idea, though, that all
you got to do is get all the
molecules together and add energy and it'll make
life.
Okay, well, let's do a science experiment.
Let's put a frog in a blender and
turn it on.
In just a few moments, you will have
frog nog.
You will have all of the energy required
to make a frog, all of the molecules
required to make a frog in one place.
Right?
Now we're going to add energy.
Put it on puree.
Leave it on for a million years.
Nuke it, microwave it, zap it with jumper
cables.
I don't care what you do to it.
How long will it take to reassemble the
frog?
It ain't going to work, is it?
No.
We don't have a tree of life.
They put this in the textbooks like, yes,
boys and girls, humans evolved from bacteria billions
of years ago.
It's in all the textbooks.
This is pure propaganda value.
That's what it's in there for.
There's no evidence for any of it.
Even Mary Leakey said those trees of life
with the branches of our ancestors are a
lot of nonsense.
Stephen Gould said the evolutionary trees that adorn
our textbooks are not the evidence of fossils.
They make this stuff up.
It's imagination.
This textbook says all the many forms of
life on Earth today are descended from a
common ancestor found in a population of primitive
unicellular organisms.
There's no such thing as a primitive unicellular
organism.
And then it says no traces of those
events remain.
As boys and girls, we know what happened,
but there's no proof.
This textbook says the humans, the birds, and
the crocodiles have a common ancestor.
Isn't that the impression they're trying to get
across?
Look, folks, everything inside that circle is pure
religious speculation, not science.
They might want to believe that, but that's
not science.
It's a lie.
It's based on pure imagination.
Anybody that teaches that is in trouble when
they stand before God.
Jesus said if you destroy a child's faith,
you're in serious trouble.
Read Matthew chapter 18.
Then they tell the kids because something is
smaller, it is simpler.
They talk about simple one-celled organisms.
Look, a paramecium is single-celled, but it's
not simple.
One paramecium is more complex than the space
shuttle.
And you can put thousands of those into
a drop of water.
Smaller is not simpler.
Here's a paperclip around a microchip.
This ant is holding a microchip in his
mouth.
That microchip can process every letter of the
Bible 200 times per second.
Smaller is more complex.
I'll show you.
Let's compare the brain of a honeybee to
the NASA Cray computer, the YMPC-90, at
one time the world's fastest computer.
The Cray computer is huge.
The brain of the honeybee is tiny.
The Cray computer did 6 billion calculations per
second.
They estimate the honeybee's brain does 1,000
billion per second.
The Cray computer uses many megawatts.
The honeybee uses 10 microwatts.
Extremely efficient.
The honeybee can fly a million miles on
one gallon of honey.
Let me see you make a machine that
gets a million miles per gallon.
The Cray costs $48 million.
The honeybee's brain is pretty cheap.
You spot them on your windshield all the
time.
Many people scramble when the Cray breaks down.
The honeybee heals itself.
The Cray weighed 2,300 pounds.
The honeybee's brain doesn't weigh too much.
Let's see, what can we conclude?
The supercomputer was huge, slow, inefficient.
You had to babysit the dumb thing.
But everybody knows it had to be designed.
Right?
There's nobody with half a brain that will
tell you the Cray came from an explosion
in an electronics factory.
It was designed, okay?
And yet they turn right around and think
the honeybee evolved.
And the brain of a human is a
lot more complex than a honeybee.
A lot more complex.
But you know, your brain is capable of
a memory capacity of storing all the information
of the British Library.
And it has a computational speed in bits
per second equivalent to the entire national telephone
system.
Just in three pounds of gray matter.
It's estimated there are more connections in your
brain than there are electrical connections in the
world.
How many times have two wires been put
together and crimped or soldered or clamped together
somehow?
Wire nutted in the world?
Your brain probably has more than that in
the number of connections.
Just one brain.
I asked a professor one time, I said,
Sir, do you believe your brain is nothing
but three pounds of chemicals that got together
by chance over billions of years?
He said, yes, I do.
I said, then how can you trust your
thoughts and the reasoning processes?
Maybe you got a chemical in there backwards.
He did, by the way.
Anybody that believes they come from a rock
has several of them in there backwards, in
my opinion.
Then they tell him, well, DNA proves evolution.
Just about every debate I do, they'll say,
DNA proves evolution.
Oh, let's talk about this.
This textbook says we have evidence from molecular
biology talking about the DNA, the oxyribonucleic acid.
This book says Darwin speculated that all forms
of life are related.
This speculation has been verified because of DNA
sequences.
This is a lie.
There's nothing about DNA that has helped verify
evolution.
The DNA is the most complicated molecule in
the universe.
One DNA strand is about six or seven
feet long.
Average person in this room has 50 trillion
cells in their body.
Each of those contains 46 DNA strands.
Except for, again, they say you've got 23.
If you took all the DNA out of
your body, it would fill about two tablespoons.
But if you unwound it and stretched it
out, this really complex, tight molecule would stretch
out, and you could tie them all together,
and one person's DNA would stretch from Earth
to the moon and back five million round
trips.
Out of two tablespoons.
It's got the most complicated code ever in
the history of the world.
If you typed out the code found in
your DNA, when you got done typing, you'd
have enough books to fill Grand Canyon 40
times.
Does anybody work with computers at all?
So you see, you get 40 Grand Canyons
full of books, condense it to software.
CD-ROM, PK-ZIP, I don't care what
you use, CyQuest.
When you're all done, though, it has to
fit into two tablespoons.
My heavenly father did it.
He's pretty smart, ain't he?
David said, I will praise thee, for I'm
fearfully and wonderfully made.
He didn't even have a microscope, and he
could figure it out.
You know, from conception to birth, the baby
adds 15,000 cells per minute to its
body.
Each one more complex than a space shuttle.
How would you like to be in charge
of supplying materials for a factory that's producing
15,000 space shuttles a minute?
Some of you ladies are thinking, I did,
man, that's hard.
Sometimes in the middle of the night, they
want pickles down there for something.
What do you want a pickle for?
I don't know, but go get one.
Must be building something that needs part of
a pickle.
Who knows?
You know, the probability of one DNA arranging
itself by chance has been calculated to be
1 in 10 to the 119,000th power.
That's a big number when you consider the
entire visible universe is 10 to the 28
inches in diameter.
Big number.
DNA does not prove evolution.
DNA only shows how complex life is.
You know, penicillin only has two chromosomes.
Fruit flies have eight.
I put together some critters and said, you
know, I think I know how evolution really
happened.
Penicillin was first, and it evolved to a
fruit fly.
And then it evolved to a tomato.
Or a housefly, they're twins, you know, they
both have 12 chromosomes.
Very hard to tell the difference between those
two.
And then slowly over millions of years, they
got some more chromosomes and became a pea.
And then it evolved to a bee.
Now here you can see the similarity.
Pee, bee, very similar.
And then very slowly it evolved to lettuce.
And over millions of years, finally, triplets were
born.
Did you know the possum, the redwood tree,
and the kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes?
The average scientist cannot tell them apart.
Let's see, possum, redwood tree, kidney bean.
Yeah, let me see.
Tree, got it.
Possum, oh, we got it, folks.
There we go.
And then slowly over millions of years, we
evolved to a human.
Here we have 46.
And if we can just get two more,
we're going to be a tobacco plant.
Sometimes I'll get on the elevator and I'll
say, man, you're evolving, you're way ahead of
me.
And of course, dogs and chickens are twins.
Everybody knows that.
They both have 78 chromosomes.
And someday we might get enough chromosomes to
be a carp.
And it probably won't happen in my lifetime,
but maybe we'll evolve far enough.
Someday, in stardate 349572, we can be a
fern.
I was in a church one time.
This lady came to me afterwards and said,
Mr. Hovind, I'm fern.
I shook hands with that hand right there.
I'll never wash it again.
I tell the kids to think critically.
Boys and girls, there are 20 kinds of
amino acids.
That's true.
They make up proteins.
Explain how this fact supports the idea that
all life shares a common ancestor.
No, that fact supports the idea that all
life has a common designer.
I bet you can go to the library
and find all the books in the library
contain the same 26 basic letters.
Don't they?
Yep.
That proves everything involved from Morse code.
No, that proves that's the code with which
you write English.
And the 20 amino acids is the code
with which you write proteins.
OK.
And God did it that way, I think,
so that we can eat something other than
ourself.
See, the brown cow can eat the green
grass and get the white milk, and I
can drink and get the blonde hair.
If God didn't make it that way with
the same 20 amino acids, then we couldn't
digest other things.
Think about it.
I tell the kids that the human and
the chimpanzee are related.
The human and the orangutan are 96%
similar.
That proves a common ancestor 15 million years
ago.
What is this baloney?
Barney Maddox, the leading genome researcher, he said,
the genetic difference between human and his nearest
relative, the chimpanzee, is at least 1.6%.
That doesn't sound like much, but calculated out,
that's a gap of 48 million nucleotides, and
a change of only three nucleotides is fatal
to an animal.
There is no possibility of change.
Kids, when they tell you that you have
proof for evolution because the human and the
chimpanzee are similar DNA, they're confused or they're
lying to you.
Actually, they've now discovered the difference is much
greater.
It's now 95% similarity instead of 98
.6. We've got tons of material on this
on our website.
The similarity between humans and chimps is much
greater than they thought.
I mean, the difference between humans and chimps
is much greater than they thought.
Similar structures nearly always have similar plans, like
DNA in this case.
Similar bridges nearly always have similar blueprints.
This hardly constitutes evidence that one sired the
other or that they were erected by tornadoes.
So what if we're similar to humans?
You know, people have a pretty good understanding
of how cars work.
I've had 124 cars since I've been driving.
Never had a new one.
Always get a clunker and fix it up,
you know.
My daddy taught us boys how to work
on cars.
I rebuilt the motors, the transmissions, the wobbler
shafts, the muffler bearings, the high-speed canooting
valves.
I know how cars work pretty well.
But understanding how a car works does not
explain how it originated.
Big difference.
Just because you know the operation has nothing
to do with the origination.
Suppose your son turns 16, like my kids
did years ago.
Your son comes up one day and says,
Hey, Dad, I got my driver's license.
Wow, son, let me see that thing.
Ooh-wee, that's a lousy picture.
It is a good likeness, though.
He says, Hey, Dad, can I borrow the
car?
Well, son, listen, your mom and I knew
this day was coming.
We've been praying about this.
We don't think you're ready for the whole
car, son.
The car is a complex machine.
Did you know there are 3,000 bolts
required to hold a car together, and one
nut can scatter it all over the highway?
The car is so complex, we decided we're
going to let you slowly evolve into the
car.
This year, we're going to give you 10%.
Next year, maybe a little more.
Question.
What good is 10% of a car?
That's what you put in the junkyard, isn't
it?
How many things have to be right on
a car to make it work?
Like many, many thousands of things?
How many things have to be wrong to
make it stop working?
Any one of thousands of things.
Take a needle, stick it through two spark
plug wires, trim it off, wrap up the
rubber.
They'll never find that one.
Pull the distributor cap, take a pencil, rub
it around, put it back.
That's a tough one to find.
When somebody's getting married, pull out the coil
wire, stick a doorbell wire in there, shove
it back, take the doorbell wire through the
firewall, weave it through the fabric of the
front seat.
They're getting ready to go on their honeymoon,
you know.
Hit that.
Don't get me started.
We can go for hours.
I like working on cars.
Folks, complex things require a designer.
And as they tell the kids, the humans
and chimpanzees are similar.
There are thousands of differences.
But even if there are some similarities, so
what?
If you think the percentage of similarity proves
something, let me show you the research I've
been doing.
I've discovered that clouds are 100% water.
Watermelons are 97%.
Only 3% difference.
That proves watermelons evolved from clouds.
And I discovered jellyfish are 98% water.
And so are snow cones.
That proves how they evolved.
Then they tell the kids fossils prove evolution.
This textbook says fossils provide evidence of evolution.
This is a lie.
Fossil accounts as evidence for evolution.
But the textbook here says evolution is a
fact.
The fossil record provides some of the strongest
evidence that species evolved over time.
There is no fossil record.
You don't look back in the fossil record.
You look at fossils.
You put your interpretation on them.
They don't have a date with them and
a card that says this one was made
47 million years ago.
There is no such thing as a fossil
record.
How do we fall for such a dumb
idea?
But the textbooks are always saying fossils can
contribute to the understanding of evolution.
Darwin said, if my theory be true, numberless
intermediate fossils must have existed.
There must be a bunch of them out
there.
I agree, Charlotte.
There ought to be a whole bunch.
This book says, since Darwin, many links have
been found.
Well, they're dreaming.
David Robb, who has a huge fossil collection
at the American Museum of Natural History, I
believe, or Filth Museum in Chicago.
I forget which one he works at.
I think it's New York.
He said, in the years after Darwin, his
advocates hoped to find predictable progressions, you know,
missing links.
In general, these have not been found.
Yet the optimism has died hard and some
pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.
Fantasy in the textbooks?
You've got to be kidding.
Oh, no.
Evolution is based on fantasy.
We could spend hours talking about there are
no missing links.
There just aren't, folks.
These quotes are all on our website about
how evolution is not supported by fossils.
If you find a fossil in the dirt,
it died.
You can't prove it had any kids.
And you sure can't prove it had different
kids.
And why would you think a bone from
the dirt can do something animals today can't
do?
Hey, they say we evolved from an ape
-like ancestor.
Okay, apes are still having babies.
Let's do it again.
I want to see it this time.
We don't observe any evolution.
Luther Sunderland wrote to major evolutionists all over
and said, hey, where's the evidence for evolution?
I want to see it.
They all wrote back and said, we don't
have it.
Somebody else has it.
Colin Patterson has the access to the largest
fossil collection in the world.
British Museum, National History.
Patterson wrote a book about evolution.
So Luther read the book and said, hey,
I read your book, Mr. Patterson, but you
didn't show us any missing links.
Where are they?
Patterson said, I fully agree with your comments
on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my
book.
If I knew of any, fossil or living,
I would certainly have included them.
I will lay it on the line.
There is not one such fossil.
See, folks, there's not a missing link.
The whole chain is missing.
So they got a new theory now to
explain why they're missing.
Stephen Gould said the absence of fossil evidence
is a nagging problem for evolution.
He knows there's no evidence for evolution.
So he's got a new theory, kind of
brought up Goldschmidt's old theory that said maybe
the first bird hatched from a reptile egg.
Do what?
He says, yeah, you know, maybe evolution happens
so quickly that there's no evidence.
Oh, well, that's good.
You know, we don't have any proof.
So that proves it.
Try that one in a court of law.
See how far you get.
They tell the kids to think critically.
Boys and girls, the fossil record shows that
an organism evolved through many small changes over
time.
That's a lie, by the way.
Which theory best describes organisms evolution?
Gradualism or punctuated equilibria?
How do you think it happened, boys and
girls?
Was it slow changes like Darwin said, or
was it jumps like Stephen Gould said?
In their mind, there's only two choices.
Evolution happens slowly or evolution happened quickly.
They do not seem to be capable of
thinking outside the box.
It didn't happen at all.
I debated the different kinds.
I debated Pigliucci at the University of Tennessee,
Knoxville.
I debated him twice.
I don't know if I'll do it again.
I'd be glad to, by the way, Doc,
if you get ready, if you get brave
enough, let me know.
I said, Dr. Pigliucci, you have studied and
taught courses on the evolution of plants for
10 years.
You received and spent $650,000 in grant
money to study the evolution for plants.
What is the best evidence for
exactly what kind of plant is a whale
anyway?
He told me the hippo is evidence for
evolution because it's in the process of adapting
to an aquatic way of life.
It likes the water, so that's proof for
evolution.
He said the flying squirrel is evidence because
it has half a wing.
He gets tax dollars to teach.
See, every evolutionist I've talked to thinks that
the evidence is in somebody else's field.
It's like a shell game.
Everybody thinks that the biologist has the evidence.
Pigliucci is a botanist.
He thinks that the anthropologist or somebody else
has the evidence.
They're all spreading the blame.
The only problem is there's no P under
any of them.
There is no evidence for evolution.
None.
They tell the kids, we've got evidence from
the horse evolution.
This is a bunch of baloney.
They arranged a bunch of animals in a
fictitious order.
It's been proven wrong 50 years ago.
They don't tell the kids that the so
-called ancient horse had 18 pairs of ribs.
The next one had 15.
The next one had 19.
Then back to 18.
These are not even the same animal.
It's a pure imagination arrangement of these creatures.
They're teaching this in textbooks all over the
world.
There's quite a variety of horses today, folks.
Big ones and little ones right now.
But back in 1950, G.G. Simpson, who
believed in evolution, said this evolution of the
horse family was unintentionally falsified.
The evolution of the horse was all wrong.
Over 50 years ago, it's proven wrong.
It never happened in nature.
Why do they keep putting it in the
books?
They say this example of the horse evolution
has not held up under close examination.
Othniel Marsh made up this whole idea in
1874.
He wanted to provide evidence for Darwin's theory.
He picked animals from all over the world
and put them in an order he thought
they would look good.
It's imagination.
Modern horses have been found in the same
layers and lower than the so-called ancient
horse.
The ancient horse is not a horse at
all.
It's a Hyracotherm.
It's like the Hyrax, still alive in Turkey
and East Africa today.
The ribs, toes, and teeth are different on
these animals.
In South America, the fossils go backwards the
wrong way.
They don't talk about that.
They're never found in the order presented.
The whole thing is imagination.
But it still is taught in the books
to help give the kids evidence for evolution.
The Tulsa Zoo finally took down their display
after Dan Hicks wrote letters.
Here's the letters right here.
He wrote letters to the Tulsa Zoo and
said, Why do you still have the evolution
of the horse on display?
And they wrote back and said, We don't
have the funding to remove it.
Come read the letters.
Dan went and got a bid at a
sign shop.
Here's the bid right here.
They said, We will put up a sign
that says, This display is not correct.
And we'll take it down as soon as
we get enough money.
62 bucks for the sign.
So Dan went and said, Here's the quote,
fellas.
I'll pay you 62 bucks.
When would you like the sign delivered?
Nothing happened.
They said, We've got to take this to
the board.
Well, the board got bored because they never
did anything.
Finally, he collected 2,000 signatures and said,
Get this display out of our zoo.
Well, it made the evening news that the
Tulsa Zoo was lying to the kids coming
through.
The display was gone the next day.
But I just found out recently they put
it back up.
What's a zoo doing teaching evolution anyway?
See, the evolutionists are pushing their religion at
every tax-funded opportunity they can get.
Peabody Museum still has the horse evolution on
display.
I stood there by that display as hundreds
of kids came through.
Stood there for quite a while.
School group after school group after school group
came through.
Was never told this was proven wrong 50
years ago.
You go get the textbooks used in your
county schools or your city schools.
It's still in there, folks.
It's not true.
That page ought to be torn out of
the book.
Just because you can arrange animals in order
doesn't prove a thing.
Even if you find them buried in a
certain order, that doesn't prove a thing.
If I get buried on top of a
hamster, does that prove he's my grandpa?
I've been doing a lot of research on
the evolution of the fork.
I've pieced together fragmentary evidence for years.
I believe after intensive research, the knife evolved
first and then slowly evolved to the spoon.
Took millions of years.
Great geological pressure squeezed it, dished it out,
widened it up a little bit and then
slowly erosion cut grooves into the end and
turned it into the short time fork and
then very slowly over millions of years the
grooves got longer and wider.
I knew I had the right order but
I felt like I had a missing link.
Particularly between spoons and forks.
You see, spoons are rounded and no grooves.
Forks are squared and grooved.
That's two jumps in one.
Even punctuated equilibrium can't do that.
So I knew I had a missing link
here, folks, but I couldn't find it.
Until one day I'm flying an airplane on
U.S. air 30,000 feet off the
ground and the stewardess walked down the aisle
and handed me the missing link.
I don't think she knew what she had.
But my trained scientific eye picked it up.
I said, this is it.
Later that day I went to get some
chicken for lunch and found another one.
There they are, folks.
The missing links.
So the evolution of silverware is becoming very
complete.
I have found a lot of evidence since
then.
I've been gathering data on this for a
long time.
I even found a few mutants along the
way.
Didn't quite make it for some reason.
You know, it was very interesting though.
As soon as people found out I was
doing research on the evolution of the fork,
everybody wanted to become famous.
They sent me all their data from all
over the country.
Even some lies got sent to me, folks.
I mean, some people, they just want to
be famous.
This one is an obvious fork head on
a spoon handle.
It didn't get by me, though.
This is a cutthroat business.
This fossil business is dangerous, you know.
You've got to watch it.
But I caught it right away.
That didn't, it's not in my museum.
The rest of them are, though.
Even found that environmental pressures can cause all
sorts of colors to arise over millions of
years.
Now look, you can arrange letters in order
and try to prove something if you want.
You can turn a cat to a cat
to a dog to a dog, making one
letter change at a time.
If you play around for a while, you
can turn yourself into a fool.
Doesn't take long, either.
Now they tell the kids dinosaurs turn to
birds.
Yeah.
The Bible says the birds are made on
day five.
All right.
Reptiles, made on day six.
Evolution has it backwards.
Everything about the evolution theory is backwards to
the Bible.
And why some Christians try to compromise the
two, I don't know.
But they don't blend together.
The scientist says dinosaurs alive as birds.
Scientist says, oh, wow.
Scientist said, it must be true.
Wow.
Scientist says, you know, bow down, everybody.
This is absurd.
OK.
1999, USA Today announced missing link of birds
is discovered.
National Geographic, missing link, breaking news.
We got it, folks.
A huge article on how dinosaurs turn to
birds.
A couple of months later.
Oops, fellas.
We got lied to.
Somebody in China made the fossil.
It's a fake.
We could spend hours talking about this.
The dinosaur to bird.
All those fossils coming out of China are
real suspect.
Those guys make, you know, three dollars a
year if they work real hard.
What if you work two years and make
one fossil?
You can sell the Smithsonian for four million.
You and your family are set for life.
And somebody over here is dumb enough to
buy it.
These guys say this bird evolution is silly.
They say birds are the descendants of dinosaurs.
In case you don't know, there are a
few differences between a dinosaur and a bird.
You don't just put a few feathers on
them and say, come on, man, give it
a try.
It won't hurt too bad.
You see, birds have feathers.
They have two legs and two wings.
Reptiles have four perfectly good legs.
If he's going to evolve to a bird,
somewhere along the line, his front legs are
going to be half wing and half leg.
Which means now he can't fly and he
can't walk.
He's got a problem.
Who's going to feed him during this transitional
stage?
They say Archaeopteryx is evidence of evolution.
Alan Fiduccia said paleontologists have tried to turn
Archaeopteryx into an earthbound feathered dinosaur, but it's
not.
It's a bird, a perching bird.
And no amount of paleobabble is going to
change that.
Archaeopteryx means ancient wing.
They'll say, he's got claws on his wings.
Yep, I see that.
They'll say, see, that proves it used to
be a dinosaur.
Oh, it does not.
Twelve birds today have claws on their wings.
The ostrich does, the hawkson does, the turaco,
the ibis, the swan.
It's not proof it used to be a
dinosaur.
They're going to say he's got teeth in
his beak.
That proves he used to be a dinosaur.
What else?
Slow down.
Very few birds, Archaeopteryx and Hesperornis, the only
two I know of, with teeth.
But, oh, the hummingbird also has teeth.
Some hummingbirds do.
But, going from teeth to no teeth is
losing, not gaining.
I mean, some birds have teeth.
Most don't.
Some reptiles have teeth.
Some don't.
Some fish have teeth.
Some don't.
Some of you have teeth.
Some don't.
OK?
There's a hummingbird with a little bitty teeth
in his beak right there.
Forty-eight teeth in the Andes Mountains.
Not proof for evolution.
Archaeopteryx might even be a fake.
That's what several scientists have said.
I don't know.
It doesn't matter.
It's not a missing link.
They say bird feathers evolved from the same
scales that protected the dinosaurs so well.
This is silly.
Bird feathers are incredibly complex.
Now, feathers and scales are both made of
the same protein.
It's called keratin.
I understand.
But, that's where the similarity stops.
Battleships and forks are both made out of
the same metal.
That proves they all evolved from a tin
can.
Feathers and scales are extremely different.
There's plenty of evidence about that.
Birds have a different lung system than reptiles
have.
Birds have different heart than reptiles have.
By the way, how can archaeopteryx be a
missing link when fully formed birds are already
present?
This one shows 130 million year old crow.
Now, I disagree with 130 million year old
stuff, but if birds are there before dinosaurs
went extinct, we've got a real problem here.
Here's a 140 million year old bird.
142 million year old bird.
There are plenty of other reasons to refute
the dinosaur-bird connection, said Alan Fadducia.
How do you derive birds from a heavy
earthbound bipedal reptile that has a deep body,
heavy balancing tail, and four shortened forelimbs?
Biophysically, it's impossible.
Here's quite a few problems with the bird
theory.
Their lungs are different.
Their modern birds are already in layers lower
than dinosaurs.
The scales attach to the body differently than
the feathers do.
Birds have a four-chambered heart.
Most reptiles have three.
Birds lay a different type of egg than
reptiles.
There are just thousands of differences.
There is no fossil evidence of how reptiles
change to birds.
That is such a silly idea.
And Satan is laughing at those folks who
believe in it.
Satan thinks up the dumbest ideas, and he's
got, oh wow, cool idea.
Yeah, dinosaurs turned to birds.
Wow, that's cool.
He's laughing at you for believing that.
Oh, who's right, and what do we do?
Richard Dawkins said, It's absolutely safe to say
if you meet someone who claims not to
believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid,
or insane, or wicked.
He's open-minded, isn't he?
Jesus said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind.
You don't have to lay your brain at
the door when you go study God's Word.
You just bring it along.
Come now, let us reason together, saith the
Lord.
Look, the most reasonable thing is to believe
God created this world.
That is extremely reasonable.
It's logical and intelligent to believe in a
creator and in a young earth creation.
I debated Ken Miller on the radio once.
He wrote this book.
He's a professor of biology in Rhode Island
at Brown University.
He said, Evolution is controversial in certain circles.
And some people wonder why biologists insist on
teaching it.
The answer is simple.
Evolution is the most powerful statement ever made
about living things.
No.
Evolution is the most silly statement ever made
about living things.
It had to be designed.
Evolution is not a fact.
It doesn't even qualify as a theory.
It's not even a hypothesis.
It's a metaphysical research program.
It's not testable science, Karl Popper said.
Julian Huxley, Thomas Huxley's grandson, said, I suppose
the reason why we left at the origin
of species was the idea of God interfered
with our sexual mores.
Oh, now we're getting to the truth.
Some people don't want God telling them what
to do.
That's the bottom line.
Professor Ruse said, Evolution is promulgated by its
practitioners as more than mere science.
Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular
religion.
He said, I am an ardent evolutionist and
an ex-Christian.
But I must admit that this and this
one complaint and Mr. Gish is one of
many to make it.
The literates are absolutely right.
Evolution is a religion.
This was true of evolution in the beginning
and it's true of evolution today.
Arthur Keith said, Evolution is unproved and unprovable.
We believe it because the only alternative is
special creation and that is unthinkable.
We don't want to think that maybe there
might have been a creator.
I agree with this guy.
He said, Evolution is a fairytale for grownups.
The theory has helped nothing in the progress
of science.
It's useless.
Muggeridge said, I'm convinced the theory of evolution
will be one of the great jokes in
the history books of the future.
Tell you what, folks, it is a joke.
It is silly, but it's effective.
And Satan's been using this since the Garden
of Eden when he said to Eve, Ye
shall be as gods.
That's what evolution is all about.
You can evolve and progress and improve to
godhood.
It's rejecting the creator and putting man in
his place.
The devil is a liar.
He doesn't want you to go to heaven.
These scientists who go around teaching evolution are
great con men.
The story they are teaching may be the
greatest hoax ever.
In explaining evolution, we do not have one
iota of fact.
Fred Hoyle said, The only way life could
get here is by a super intelligence having
put it here.
And then he turns around and said, See,
this proves life came from outer space.
Jump, frog, jump.
Pierre de Chardin, one of the guys responsible
for the Piltdown hoax, said, Evolution is a
postulate to which all theories, all hypotheses must
henceforth bow in order to be thinkable and
true.
Evolution is a light which illuminates all facts.
Well, sorry, Pierre.
You're lying.
God's word is a light.
Evolution is not a light.
It destroys science.
Hey, if a kid goes twelve to sixteen
years to school in your town, how's he
going to view the world?
Why would they lie and keep this in
the books?
Well, some people think that if everyone believes
in evolution, it'll become true.
You know, majority opinion.
Some people think they must teach the lie
to keep the paycheck coming in.
Hey, if you go against evolution, you're likely
to lose your job at a public school.
Some people understand the bigger picture of how
evolution is the formation, the foundation for the
new world order.
We cover lots more on that on part
five.
Why do they believe this?
Well, some, that's all they've been taught.
I spoke in Russia and all they have
over there are the same evidences for evolution
that are used over here.
That's all they're taught.
There's a good book if you want to
give to somebody who believes in evolution.
It's called The Case Against Darwin.
I've got one here on the table somewhere,
down there.
That's a good starter for those intelligent folks
who just have time to read a short
book.
It's a real good one to get the
message out.
When I spoke in Russia, I spoke over
there and there were thirty professors in the
room.
I spoke for two hours on creation through
a translator.
After about an hour, one professor was crying.
I asked the interpreter, I said, what's he
crying about?
And she said, he's never heard the creation
story.
He didn't know there was one.
He wants you to keep going.
I've got a missionary friend now that's begging
for people to come to Africa.
He said, would you please send people over
here because they can get into public.
He said, I can get into five or
six or seven public schools every day where
they ask us, would you please tell our
kids how to get saved?
Tell our kids the creation story.
Please send somebody over here.
A guy that I used to work with
in Pensacola, been a missionary over there for
years, just begging people to come.
He can go to Russia tonight and they'll
let you into public schools over there and
preach the gospel to them.
We've got Americans more worried about that paycheck
coming in over here.
Why do they believe this?
Well, some believe it because their job depends
upon it.
Some just simply hope there's no God to
answer to.
The Bible says they did not like to
retain God in their knowledge, so God gave
them up to reprobate minds and believe those
things which are not, do those things which
are not convenient.
The Bible says God will send them to
a strong delusion.
And if you believe you came from a
rock, you're deluded.
Seriously.
Some people simply have too much pride to
admit they've been wrong.
Okay.
Lies are in our textbooks.
What do we do about it?
Very simple.
If you can, get your kids out.
Private school, home school, get them out if
you can.
If you can't, don't send your kids off
unarmed because they're going to have corrupt stuff
in their textbooks.
Get them to know the truth.
There are lots of practical things you can
do.
The Bible says we're the salt of the
earth.
Salt irritates.
If nobody's irritated at you, you're probably not
a good Christian.
Okay.
Practical steps.
Most teachers that I know are sincere, dedicated
professionals.
They are not the enemy.
They're just simply teaching what they've been taught.
Educate them.
Teach them the truth.
Teach all the kids the truth.
See, we can reach everybody at the grassroots
level.
They can't stop that.
Second level, educate all the teachers.
Third level, change the textbooks.
Fourth level, change the laws.
Oh, while we're waiting for that, let's start
at the bottom and let's just change all
the people.
They can't stop that one.
Some people say teachers can't teach creation in
public schools.
That's a lie.
They can teach creation in public schools.
There are no laws against it.
We cover all that at the beginning of
tape number five.
It's perfectly fine to teach creation in public
schools.
Satan's a liar.
He's using this theory to draw your kids
away from God and send them to hell.
The Bible says from the invisible things to
the creation of the world is clearly seen.
They are without excuse.
If you're here, if you're watching this tape
or listening to me speak and you've accepted
the evolution theory and rejected the creation, God
made this creation, Bible says you are without
excuse.
All you got to do is look around
and see there's evidence there was a designer.
And he loves you, but he hates your
sin.
The Bible says God is angry with the
wicked.
Every day.
You're going straight to hell the instant you
die.
If you've not accepted Christ as your Savior.
I deserve to go to hell.
Man.
But I'm not going.
Because I've been forgiven.
You can have the same thing.
If you're not sure you're going to heaven,
nothing else matters, folks.
Because you're going to be dead for a
long time.
I'd encourage you to call out for God's
mercy right now.
Say, Lord, would you please forgive me and
save me right now.
Bible promises, whosoever shall call upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved.
Romans.
Romans chapter 3, 23.
Romans 6, 23.
Romans 10, 13.
God loves you.
He wants you to come to heaven.
But he hates your sin.
And you're going to hell that quick.
If you don't have Christ in your life.
If we can be any help, please feel
free to give us a call.
That's what our ministry exists for.
To help people come to the Lord.
Thank you for your attention tonight.
Let's all stand, bow our heads and close
our eyes.
And let's pray.
Some are worse than others.
At least in man's eyes.
But we've all broken God's laws.
And the Bible says you have to repent.
The word repent means to turn.
It actually means two things.
To turn from your sin and to turn
to God.
God's looking for a change in your attitude
where you say, Lord, I don't want to
do wrong anymore.
I'm sorry.
I've offended you.
I want to do right.
And you turn from sin and you turn
to God and say, God, would you please
forgive me?
Would you save me?
The Bible says in Romans chapter 3, verse
23.
That all have sinned and come short of
the glory of God.
You need to admit you're a sinner.
Number two, the Bible says in Romans 6,
verse 23, the wages of sin is death.
We deserve to die and go to hell
because of our sin.
But, Jesus died for you.
He loves you.
He wants you to come to heaven.
And anybody that will ask him for the
free salvation, God will give you the gift
of eternal life.
It says in Romans 6, verse 23.
It's a free gift.
And it says in Romans chapter 10, in
verse 13, Whosoever shall call upon the name
of the Lord shall be saved.
If you would just call and say, Lord,
I'm a sinner.
Would you please forgive me?
And ask him.
He will give you that free gift of
eternal life.
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, God would forgive you.
Just say, Dear Lord Jesus, I know that
I'm a sinner.
I've broken your laws.
I'm sorry.
Please forgive me.
Please apply your blood to my account.
Forgive my 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, He promised He'd save you.
Now your job is to grow.
Read your Bible.
Pray.
Get involved in a good Bible-believing church
and begin to grow to be a good
Christian.
Thank you so much.
Call or write if we can be any
help at all.
We'd be glad to help.