Dr. Hovind 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, some false information being presented. Why is this information in the science textbooks? What are they trying to prove? Hi, my name is Eric, and in this seminar called Lies in the Textbooks, you're going to find out some of those lies that are being presented and what you can do about it. Welcome to our seminar take number four on lies in the textbooks. I taught high school science for 15 years and now I travel and do seminars 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 caveman. There's never been a caveman, unless you mean Osama bin Laden. They're being lied to about the dinosaur. 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? 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. Yeah, sure, hey there, fella, you betcha. 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. I 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. 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? The 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've 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, but 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 of 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 4000 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. I 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 fellow said, no, sir, I never seen nothing like this. The farmer said, you got any questions? The city fellow said, yes, sir, I have one question. The farmer said, let's hear it. The city fellow 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 he's looking at. The Bible warned us that was going to happen. Second Peter, chapter three, 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 lusts. 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 chaps 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. 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 lots 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 up 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 they've 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 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 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. Lyle didn't like that idea. He wanted people to believe the earth is millions of years old. Charles Lyle, 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 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 Christian says, oh no, these layers are all from the flood in the days of Noah. You can get a jar of dirt, shake it up, set it down, it'll settle the 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 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. I had one 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'd be a hundred 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, put some water in it and shake it up, folks. It'll settle out of the 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. There's a wonderful little church out there in the country. The preacher said, hey, Brother Holford, 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 a behind glass all lit up. It's holy. Don't touch it. OK. We're standing there and the guy 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. 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'll walk down the other side of standing over here. And the guy said, Now, folks, These bones you're looking at are about a hundred 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 come 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 trip 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, 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, okay? 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 were told 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 500 to 600 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, OK, 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. 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 live 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 and 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 on 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 Weldian 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? 5 years? 10 years? 20 years? 5,000 years? I doubt that. And yet, petrified trees are called polystratifossils, 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 the 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 12 different layers of slate. And they're going to tell you in school, each layer of slate represents a different season. That's 12 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 till 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. When 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 kids 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 went out and 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. There's a petrified pickle in our museum. I'm not kidding. The guy sent it to me. He said, we found this old house in Montana. The roof was gone. House had been empty for at least 30 years. We went down the basement. There'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, yeah. Petrified pickle. A 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 uniformitarian paradigm to maintain there ever were geologic periods. The geologic column is a hoax, 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 worldview away from what the Bible teaches. to this new view from Charlie Lyle, 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 really 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 animals 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 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 macroevolution, where he changed to a different kind? Walt Brown, in his book in the beginning, an excellent book, by the way, he says microevolution 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. 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 to 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. OK, 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. Sure, it 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 is 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 jump right down to what I believe in. I believe species can change over time. I think the changes are limited, still the same kind, but you might somebody might call it a different species, 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, isn't 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 that you always last in the real world? Turn them all loose back into the woods and watch what happens. They'd run up to the wolf. 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 crossbreed 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, OK? It 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. 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, a 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 rode it. She thought it was cool, I think. 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, said, Brother Hogan, we crossbreed all sorts of these animals and get some really strange crossbreeds. We get Xorses, Xonkis, Xeonis, and Xedons, 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, OK? And most cases, the kinds are real recognizable to anybody with average intelligence. There might be a few questionable ones in there. OK, 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, it 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 Lyle 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. Scott 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 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 that need 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 rows. Mutations do not produce any kind of evolution, and 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. There'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. Go, boys, go. Here comes the wolf. Oh, Herman didn't make it. There'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 for 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, it 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 the 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. No, 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. 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 creationist thought of it 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 know, see if it works. If you've 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 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. They 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% light color and 5% black. Then they tell the kids that the trees turned black from coal burning factories, and it was only 5% light and 95% 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 kid's textbook. Those are dead moths glued on a tree trunk. It's a lie. The story's a phony. But 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 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 percent 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. Ah, 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. The reason 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 him right to begin with. And all you're doing is messing him up in your laboratory. Yeah. This guy says flies in the north have wings 4% 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 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 commonalities suggest 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 little folds of skin 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's 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 much 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 OK 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? There'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 five to six week embryo, but then it says by seven months, the fetus looks like a tiny normal baby, but it's not. It's not a baby at seven months. Hello. It's a human at conception. Every doctor knows that. Thirty four percent of babies born at five and a half months are going to survive. Maybe 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. Five 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. Cover more on that on video number five 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, OK? And I don't think Jesus would do it that way either. He grew up under Roman control, you know. 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, anyway, and right in front of me on the airplane were two ladies, I'm sorry, two women, from NOW, National Organization for Wild Women. They were upset, boy, they were gonna go march around Pensacola, you know, 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 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, man, 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 till 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, well, 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. I know you're out there. Hey, let's extend abortion rights up until the kid is 18. I bet they 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, greats with skyrocket, folks. Well, the ladies didn't want to talk about it anymore, I guess, because they left. 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 them. I like what that guy put on his tire cover on his van. He said, Lehman guns for Columbine is like Lehman spoons for O.C. O'Donnell being fat. It's not the spoon's fault. You know, if kids keep getting shot in our schools, maybe the issue we should discuss is certain criminals ought to be publicly executed. Or maybe we should discuss the issue, should all law-abiding citizens be required to carry guns to protect themselves? Hmm? Yeah. Somebody sent me this button as a joke. Proudly unarmed. Would you wear that? Think about it. What does that say to a criminal? Rob me. Isn't that exactly what it says? Our founding fathers gave us the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms. The purpose of the Second Amendment is not so you can go duck hunting. The purpose of the Second Amendment is so you can protect yourself if the government goes bad. That's why we got it. Hey, did you know there's an awful lot of animals that eat grass that have horns? You don't need horns to eat grass. But see, you need the horns to explain to the lion, stay off my back so I can eat the grass. And that's the purpose of the Second Amendment, so the citizens can explain to everybody else, leave me alone. I just want to work and earn my money. Now leave me alone. Right? Get into more of that in Part 5. Here's the logic they use to justify abortion. They're going to say it's not human. Oh, come on. That's not true. Proven wrong, 1874. They're going to say it's not viable. It can't live on its own. Well, you're not viable either, stark naked on the North Pole. They say it can't live on its own, so we can kill it. I know kids that are 25 that still come borrow money from Dad. Hey, Dad, can I borrow some money? I'll be able to live on your own by now, son. They're going to say the child may be unwanted. Show me a kid that's, there's a lot of kids that are unwanted today. My parents moved four times when I was growing up, but I found them every time. Now listen, there's probably 15 people in this room that have had an abortion. 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 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, OK? 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 killed 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 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 you would have killed it five months after it was born. Would that have been murder? He said, yeah. I said, suppose you would have killed it five minutes after it was born. Would that have been murder? He got kind of quiet, he 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 who dies. 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 said the single most single 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 a 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 blonde hair, blue eyed Norwegians were close to pure Aryan, the superior race. Did you follow all that? Blonde hair, blue eyed. norvegian borders or did it all go for you but you'll have to pay their follow-up he thought the germans were mostly arian the mediterraneans are slightly arian the slavics are half arian 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 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 preach the 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. Yet when they were found guilty of murder, one thing. 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. And September 11th, 2001, 3000 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, TLC 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. Is it what is planned with child planning? They call 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. With Planned Parenthood changed their tune in the last 40 years, haven't they? Bible says these six things that the Lord hate hands that shed innocent blood. Cursed be 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, OK? 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. So 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? We're talking about those little tiny bones right there. Just imagine the whale walking around. You know, I tried and I can't imagine. Says the whale's pelvis has no function. Hmm. 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 descended 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 and a half 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, screw it over, honey, okay? It's got nothing to do with walking on land, okay? This 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 a vestigial eye, will pay to have yours removed. 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 is 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 can drive down the highway and hold that can of coke and tune that radio knob all at the same time. 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 two plus two is five, what would you do? He said, Oh, I tell my students to mark off the wrong answer and write in the right answer. Oh, 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 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 him it's not true. You're not going to tell him 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 and 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, OK? They're lying to your kids. God created the world in six days, the Bible says very clearly. 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 four. Heaven is my throne, earth my footstool, God said. Have not my hand made all these things? The Bible's real clear that God made the world. The Bible says He formed the eye. Charles Darwin said in his book, To suppose that the eye 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, yes, 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 of 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? No, that was it. Click, hung up. What they're trying to say is God would have done it that way, so it must have evolved. Well, that's a dumb argument for evolution. Arguing against creation is not proof for evolution. You know, they say it would take a hundred 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 crag 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. 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. OK, 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 like to show this picture to evolutionists and I'll say, fellas, this is, as far as I know, You know, not Rushmore. This is the world's largest rock group. Hey, if you know of a bigger one, I'd like to see it, OK? 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 said, OK, 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 said, 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? Is that the only one? 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? Hmm. Oh, we see for millions of years, none of them lived. They all died. Oh, that'll work. Yeah, that'll work. They avoid that word design because then some kid's going to say, who's the designer? And that might bring up an embarrassing situation in class. So let's just avoid using the word design. 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 Beattie's got a great book showing the complexity of nature and 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 got saved, 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 Hovind, 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. We got off to his van. He pulled out of the trailer behind his van a Honda 900. It had been blue-painted 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 Hovind. I said, OK. Redline's about 14 or 15,000 RPM. I cranked it up. I thought, oh, this is not normal. Put it in first gear and let out the clutch and almost broke my neck. I took off down the road. I shifted into second gear. 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 live more than four billion years ago. Folks, they can swim 60 miles an hour. The fastest humans can go about four or five miles an hour through 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 okay to inquire how life evolved. It is not okay to inquire if life evolved. That's what they're trying to say to the kids, isn't it? Hey kids, it's okay 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 that 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 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 four billion and three point eight 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 of from any field of science of how life got started from non-living material Now 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 Jenna said I Spontaneous generation must be true, not because it's 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, 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 is rich in amino acids. This is a lie. 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 evidence, 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, zero percent oxygen, the rocks absorbed it. Say what? There was no oxygen, but the rocks absorbed it. The cheese then fell out of their sandwich, man. I'm telling you, that elevator don't go all the way to the top. And in two billion years after the origin of life, there was enough oxygen to support the eukaryotes. Oh, slowly evolved to today. This is pure propaganda. What Miller did in his experiment, and Uri, and everybody says, 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. OK, 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. And they tell the kids, because something is smaller, it is simpler. They talk about simple, simple, 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 six billion calculations per second. They estimate the honeybee's brain does a thousand 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 cost $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. 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'll 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, how can you trust your thoughts and the reasoning processes? Maybe you got a chemical in there backwards. He did, by the way. Anybody who 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, deoxyribonucleic 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 got 23. If you took all the DNA out of your body would feel about two tablespoons. But if you unwound it and stretched it out, This really complex type 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? You get 40 grand canyons full of books, condense it to software. CD-ROM, PKZIP, I don't care what you use, SyQuest. 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 the heap. 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? 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, we're the same 20 same amino acids, then we couldn't digest other things. Think about it. They 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. Well, this is 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 Canootin 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. 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. I used to say, 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 percent of a car? That's what you put in a 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 BAM! Ooh! Ah! Don't get me started. We can go for hours. I like working on cars. Folks, complex things require a designer. And yet they tell the kids that 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 sell the kids fossils prove evolution. This textbook says fossils provide evidence of evolution. This is a lie. No fossil counts as evidence for evolution. But the textbooks 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, okay? They don't have a date with them and a card that says this one was, you know, 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. Boy, there must be a bunch of them out there. I agree, Charlie. 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, 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 hope 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. Oh, 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, all you know is 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. OK, 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 happened 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. God created the different kinds. I debated Pigliucci at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. I debated him twice. I don't know if I'd 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 ten years. You received and spent $650,000 in grant money to study the evolution for plants. What is the best evidence you know of for evolution? I asked him that in the debate. He said, the evolution of whales. This is 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. You ever seen those shell games? You know, they put the pea down there and try to get you mixed up. Where's the pea? The geologist thinks that the biologist has the evidence. Pegahuchi is a botanist. He thinks that, you know, the anthropologist or somebody else has the evidence. They're all spreading the blame. 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 was proven wrong. It never happened in nature. Why do they keep putting it in the books? You see, 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 high wrestle theorem. It's like the high racks 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 evolution, 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, hey, here's the quote, fellas, I'll pay the 62 bucks, when would you like the sign delivered? Nothing happened. They said, we got to take this to the board. Well, the board got bored because they never did anything. Finally, he collected 2000 signatures and said, get this display out of our zoo. When I 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, you know, 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. So 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. 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 just, 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 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 turned 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. 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 turned 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, $3 a year if they work real hard. What if you work two years and make one fossil, you can sell the Smithsonian for 4 million. You and your whole 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 him 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. Yeah, 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. Or 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. 48 teeth in the Andes Mountains. It's 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 it 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. I disagree with 130 million year old stuff, but if birds are there before dinosaurs went extinct, we got a real problem here. There's 140 million year old bird, 142 million year old bird. There are plenty of other reasons to refute the dinosaur-bird connection, said Alan Fiduccia. 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. There's quite a few problems with the bird theory. Their lungs are different. 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 turn 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. 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, So 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 a 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 fairy tale for grown-ups. 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 God. That's what evolution's 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 that 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 12 to 16 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 30 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 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. You can go to Russia tonight and they'll let you into public schools over there and preach the gospel to them. We 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. Bible says they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, so God gave them up to reprobate minds, to believe those things which are not, do those things which are not convenient. Bible says God will send them 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, homeschool, 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. OK, 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 of 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? The Bible promises, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. Romans. Read 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. I hope you've enjoyed this video series on creation, evolution, and dinosaurs. Much more important, though, than knowing all the truth and facts about science, is to know the truth about whether you're going to heaven or not. If you've never trusted Christ as your Savior, let me explain quickly what you need to do to go to heaven. The Bible says we're all sinners. We've all broken God's laws. We've disobeyed the Creator. We've done wicked things. We're sinners. 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 three, 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, 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, 23, it's a free gift. And it says in Romans chapter 10 and 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.