Januari 26, 2017
dr. kent hovind -- seminar #4 -- lies in the textbooks - in english dr. hovind taught science for 15 years. then he got his ph.d. in education. he's always had a love for teaching. but one thing that he has discovered is that in many of the science textbooks across america today there are some falicies; 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 are going to find out some of those lies that are being presented, and what you can do about it. creation science evangelism - seminar 4a: lies in the textbooks? - www.drdino.com
session 7 of 14 by dr. kent hovind - in english well, welcome to our seminar on "lies in the textbooks". seminar 4, part a. my name is kent hovind. i taught high school science for 15 years. and now, since 1989, i've been doing seminars on creation, evolution, and dinosaurs. and our goal is to strengthen your faith in god's word. this is not my wife - this is just a picture of her. we live in pensacola, florida. we've been there for 16 years. we have three children, all grown up. they are all married and the dog died. i made it. as i have mentioned before we have four grandkids so far.
and grandkids are god's reward for not killing your own kids - when you thought about it. they all live right around me and they all work in our ministry. that is a real blessing. god has given us an amazing staff of people in (cse) creation science evangelism. our purpose is to get people saved. we like science at our place. we have "dinosaur adventure land". we have a science center, a theme park, a museum, and all kinds of cool science stuff. some people try to say, "well, you christians are against science." no, i like science. but i am against evolution because it is not part of science. evolution is a lie. there is no scientific evidence to back up evolution. we will get into that in just a minute. the bible says in the ten commandments:
"thou shalt not bear false witness." that means: don't lie. proverbs 19:9 says, "a false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape." god hates liars. the bible says (psalm 62:4b) "...they delight in lies." "these six things doth the lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: " (proverbs 6:16-19) "...a lying tongue," and a couple of verses later, "a false witness that speaketh lies." out of the seven things that god hates, two of them are liars. he must really hate them. he lists them in there twice. john 8:44, jesus said: "ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. "he was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him.
"when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." now then, i like science and i collect public school textbooks; i have hundreds of them. some texts from many other countries, and going clear back from the 1880s up to 2005. i am not against science. we have all kinds of really cool science displays at our museum. you can come down to "dinosaur adventure land" and see for yourself. i am however against lying to kids. now in the first three seminar videos we talked about how students are being lied to about. the big bang - it didn't happen. they're being lied to about the age of the earth. it is not billions of years old. they're being lied to about the cave men. there has never been a "cave man".
unless you mean, osama bin ladin. they're being lied to about the dinosaurs. they did not live millions of years ago. and in this seminar we are going to cover about 30 more lies in the textbooks. there are hundreds that we could go through. but we are going to try to hit the highlights. and this could go for days, just covering lies in our textbooks. i am going to hit some of the big ones. we will leave some of the little ones for another time. i am not trying to get evolution out of the public schools. i think that any theory should be allowed to be taught - if you don't have to lie to support your theory. i'm not trying to get creation into the schools.
and i think that christians who work on either of those are wasting their time. and many people have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to accomplish those two goals. that is not going to happen. i am however trying to get lies out of the textbooks. i think we will find that if we take the lies out of the textbooks there will be nothing left to support evolution. but that is their problem. they shouldn't have picked such a dumb theory to begin with. it's not my fault. now, i am also not against teachers. my mother was a godly woman. she led my dad to the lord on their first date. she retired from teaching in the public schools. she's been in heaven now for about seven years. my brother led me to the lord. he just retired last year from teaching in the public schools for 34 years.
there are many good, godly teachers in the system. there are many good, godly principles. many good, godly school board members. i am not against schools. i am not against school boards. i am not against teachers; i am not against textbooks. but i am against lies. let's just keep it in perspective. is there anyone here who thinks that teachers or textbooks should be allowed to deliberately lie to students? and i mean deliberately. a person could be lying and not know it. but if they are deliberately lying - that shouldn't be allowed, should it? wisconsin has a law that requires textbooks to be accurate. so does alabama. "textbooks shall be adequate and current..." that means up to date; using the latest information.
texas has a law that says, "instructional materials shall be factual..." good for texas. florida has a law that requires the accuracy of instructional material. and the commissioner is responsible to remove books that are not accurate. well, commissioner - do your job. watch this video and then remove the books that are not accurate. california says that textbooks shall be "factually accurate and reflect current and confirmed research". minnesota says that, "a teacher shall not deliberately suppress or distort subject matter." the problem is that none of those states enforce their own laws. i don't know if tennessee has a law requiring textbook accuracy. they ought to if they don't have one. if you don't have one - pass one.
this is a textbook from about 100 years ago. it says that god created the heavens and the earth in six days. prayer is a duty. but it is vain to pray without a sincere heart. god governs the world with infinite wisdom. do you believe that this was a public school textbook? well, here is one from today. "evolution is fact, not theory." they say, "birds arose from non-birds, and humans from non-humans. "no person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts ." wow, something has changed! i was in chickasaw, oklahoma, a couple of weeks ago. it was supposed to be a debate, but none of the professors would debate me.
so they scheduled an evolution seminar two days after i was gone. they let me speak on creation, the studen group got me in there. here is a poster they put up right next to my poster. the poster was inviting people to come to the evolution seminar. "interested in evolution? well come on down!" "evolution lectures with dr. mather and dr. reigh" it says, "hear both sides of the issue." we invited them to debate. they could have heard both sides together. the kids get nine months of evolution teaching - i come in for two hours - and they panic.
and then they put on their poster "hear both sides" ? they're not going to present both sides. they are going to present one side, only the evolution side. and that is what they already had for nine months. they don't want to hear it. i heard later that about twenty people turned up, but fifteen were from the baptist student union. they wanted to hear what those teachers would say. their own textbook that's used in chickasaw, oklahoma has one-quarter of the book one entire unit is devoted to the evolution theory. there is nothing about creation. evolution is a dying religion that is surviving only on tax dollars. it's dead. this textbook has over 100 pages where evolution is talked about.
there is not one single mention of creation. so don't tell me that they want to hear "both sides". they want to present one view only. it is called "indoctrination", not education. this is a chart showing how the atheists feel that the different states are doing with the teaching of evolution. they think that you folks in tennessee are doing a lousy job of teaching evolution to your kids. go tennessee! but they think that the folks over here in north carolina are doing a good job. so north carolina folks - get on the ball! turn your state red by the next time they do this survey. is there anyone here who thinks that teachers or textbooks should be allowed to use outdated or false information just to get students to believe their theory? would that be a good idea? no. okay.
is there anyone here who thinks teachers that deliberately lie should be fired? is there anyone here who thinks textbooks with lies should be banned? or the lies torn out of the textbook? well - hang on. let's go. it has always amazed me how two people can look at the same thing and come to opposite conclusions. you know, two people can look at the grand canyon. one of them believes in evolution. he looks at the canyon and says, "wow, look at what the colorado river did." "...for millions and millions of years." the bible believing christian stands there and looks at the same canyon. he looks at the canyon and says, "wow, look at what the flood did in about 30 minutes."
now, just how was that canyon formed? this textbook says, "over millions of years the colorado river has carved out the grand canyon from solid rock." okay, hold on a second. it is a fact that the grand canyon exists. i have been there many times. i taught earth science for 15 years. i love studying the grand canyon. there are two interpretations of how it got there. the evolutionists will say that it formed slowly with a little bit of water and lots of time. like billions of years. but the creationists will say that it formed quickly by lots of water and a little bit of time. like in the big flood in the days of noah. and the guys who believe in evolution are always trying to erase the line.
the line between their interpretation and to try to include it as if it is part of the fact. no, no, it is just your interpretation. this textbook says, "the colorado river has cut through layer upon layer of rock over millions of years..." well now, hold on a minute. this other textbook says, "the colorado river cut through 2000 meters of rock " exposing sediment layers like huge pages in the book of life. "scan the canyon wall from rim to floor and you look back through hundreds of millions of years." i don't think so. i was in a debate one time and this atheist said, "hovind, you're so stupid. don't you know it took millions of years to carve the grand canyon?"
i said, "well sir, there's a couple of things you ought to learn about the grand canyon." if you built a dam across the grand canyon a huge lake would fill in behind it. it would cover several states. it would take a lot of material to build the dam. but if you could build a dam across that canyon you'd have a really big lake. actually some of the water from wyoming drains through the grand canyon. it has a huge drainage pattern. here is a satellite color picture of it. the grand canyon is like a big gash cutting across a mountain ridge. i have flown by and taken lots of pictures over the years. i asked the pilot one time, when i was going west, if we were going near the grand canyon.
he said, "yeah, about one hundred miles from it." could you get permission to divert? could we go past near enough, to get a little closer? he got permission and we flew right over the top of the canyon! i was taking pictures like crazy. i love to study the grand canyon. actually, it is a bunch of useless real estate. what would you do with it if you had it? you can look at it and then go home. that is about it. you can't plow it. and you don't want to let your livestock play near the edge. i said to the professor, "there are a couple of things to consider about this canyon." these two red lines indicate what is called the "snow line".
between those two red lines is a ridge that is about 6900-8500 feet (2100-2600 m) above see level. to the far right - is where the river enters the canyon. that is a 2800 feet (850 m) elevation. going through the canyon the river flows downhill for 270 miles (435 km). it comes out the other side. if you look at this from a side view - it looks like this. the river comes in at 2800 feet (850 m). the ground rises up while the river goes down for 270 miles. so there are a few things to consider about this canyon. i said to the professor, "did you know that the top of the grand canyon is higher than the bottom?" he replied, "well, obviously". i said, "sir, did you know that the river only runs through the bottom?" he said, "well, yeah". i said, "sir, did you know that the top of the canyon is higher
" than where the river enters by over 4000 feet (1200 m)?" he looked kind of surprised. i continued, "sir, did you know that rivers don't flow uphill?" and there is no delta. the colorado river has almost no river delta. where is all of that mud? that river did not make that canyon! the grand canyon is a washed out spillway. there used to be two big lakes: grand lake and hopi lake. the lakes are long gone. but the ancient one-time beaches are still there. you can still see the beach line. they got too full - and washed over the top and they washed out that canyon in a hurry. any farmer who has ever built a dam to hold water for his cows will tell you.
once the water goes over the top of the dam it's all over with. that is why they guard the levy during the flood seasons, don't they? get out there with sand bags. you cannot afford for it to even get started. this river flowed down, starting at the top, and it must have been a big lake. even el paso, texas is called "el paso" because it is a big pass. i would bet that there used to be a big lake once backed up behind el paso. it later dried up and left the white sands of new mexico behind. if you look at the grand canyon, it is obvious that it is a washed out spillway. almost all rivers around the world come together at what is called acute angles, less than 90 degrees.
the rivers will merge and keep going the same general direction. if you look at the grand canyon, on the lower left are indeed merging at accute angles, less than 90 degrees. but if you look at the upper right, the rivers are flowing backwards. why would they do that? the rivers run backwards, then hit the main channel, and turn around the other way. it is called a barbed canyon. there aren't many places like this on the planet. this is evidence that a lake was once draining. the water was running in, then had to turn around. the grand canyon was not made by the flowing of the colorado river over millions of years. that is one of the lies you kids are going to face in your textbooks.
it is just not geophysically possible for that to have happened that way. are there any farmers or veterinarians here tonight? do you recognize this machine? yes, that is a calf puller. once in a while a cow has a hard time having that baby calf and so they get the calf puller out. they tie the cable around the calf's legs and slowly pull the calf out of the cow. with enough pressure - the calf comes out with no problem. well, one day this farmer was out pulling a calf. it was a breeched birth, the back feet first. that is not good, but it happens once in a while. so the farmer had the calf puller out there, tightening it up. trying to pull the calf out of the cow.
well, this city fella stopped his car to see what on earth is going on. the farmer asked him if he'd ever seen anything like this before? the city fella replied that he had never seen anything like this. the farmer asked if he had any questions. the city fella said, "yes sir, i have one question that has been bothering me for 10 minutes." the farmer told him to go ahead and ask his question. the city fella said, "how fast do you figure that calf was going when it ran into that cow?" no, no, no! this is a different situation. it is possible for two people to look at the same thing and one of them is getting the wrong idea.
the bible warned us that it was going to happen. ii peter 3:3 "knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, did you know that there are people who scoff at the bible? i deal with them on a regular basis. i attract them like a lightning rod. they scoff, it says, because of their lusts. there is no scientific reason for them to reject the bible. they just don't like that book because it chaps their hide. so they are scoffing because of their lusts, not because of their science. even julian huxley admitted it. he said:
"i suppose the reason why we leapt at the 'origin of species' was that the " idea of god interferred with our sexual morã©s." in other words, "we don't want god telling us what to do." sir arthur keith said, "evolution is unproved and unprovable. " we believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." the bible says (romans 1:28) that "they did not like to retain god in their knowledge." ii thessalonians 2:11a "and for this cause god shall send them strong delusion..." anybody that believes that they evolved from a rock 4.6 billion years ago is strongly deluded. you would have to have help to be that dumb. you could not do it on your own.
one would have to have years of training and conditioning to believe such an idea. is it possible for a person to go insane? oh yes, that happens, doesn't it? is it possible for an entire group of people to go insane? can you imagine over 900 people drinking poisoned cool-aid and killing themselves? a whole group, as a group, went insane. is it possible for an entire nation to go insane? like millions and millions of persons? oh, it has happened, folks. now then, is it possible for the entire world to go insane? well, the bible says, (revelation 12:9) "and the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent " called the devil, and satan, which deceiveth the whole world."
i think that we are living in a time when just about the whole world has gone nuts. they believe that they come from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. how dumb can you get? ii peter 3:4, it goes on to say, "where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, " all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation." that is an important phrase. the scoffers are going to say that the way things are happening now is the way they've always been. long, slow, gradual processes. the bible says that the scoffers are willingly ignorant. willingly ignorant - that means: stupid on purpose. they are willingly ignorant of how god made the heavens and the earth. and they're ignorant of the flood. the world was (ii peter 3:6) "overflowed with water and perished."
we cover more on that in video tape number two in our series. one of the scoffers in the last days was a man named james hutton. now he lived in the late 1700s. he wrote a book that said the earth is millions of years old. you need to understand that in the late 1700s most western people believed the bible. or at least they were strongly influenced by the bible and christianity. and folks generally thought that the earth was about 6000 years old. that was the common teaching of the day. in the public schools they taught that god created the world in six days. but that was also a time of many revolutions.
the american revolution; the french revolution; the polish, the spanish, the german, etc. almost every country then was revolting against the idea of a king. they wanted to establish democracies. so they threw off monarchies. this later became known as the age of anti-monarchy. here the bible teaches to "honor the king". so some people saw the bible as an obstacle to their political objectives. and they wanted to discredit the bible. keep in mind that this all happened in the late 1700s through to the early 1800s. so back when everybody thought that the earth was a few thousand years old james hutton printed his book claiming that the earth is much older than that.
and he claimed that it got here by "uniformitarianism". that is a big word, and it will be on the school's test. uniformitarianism means that the present is the key to the past. no, i think that the bible is the only perfect key to the past. during that time though the christians did not fight against that new teaching of "millions of years". they didn't object; they just accepted it. the christians accepted the idea of a gap theory, or day-age theory, or progressive creation. they accepted "millions of years" right into the bible. but it is obvious to anyone who is really reading the bible that is does not teach the millions of years.
that is not what it says. so the christians back then did not put up an effective defense. they allowed the church to begin to believe such things. and then when the theory of evolution came out - in 1859 - they then accepted that too! boy, what a tragedy. that book, "the great turning point" discusses this history. james hutton's book had a big influence on a young lawyer from scotland, named charles lyell. charles lyell, the lawyer, hated the bible. you know, someone once calculated 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, "principles of geology". i have a copy of it on the table.
in this book you can see his hatred for the bible - on almost every page. he used the term "ancient doctrines" which he mocked, like "scriptural authority". he referred to "religious prejudices". he said that "men of superior talent" (like himself), "who thought for themselves and were not blinded by authority " hutton used every opportunity he could find to mock the scriptures. in colleges these days you do not have to go very far before you will run into a professor with a mocking attitude towards god's word. how many of you had one or more of them when you went through school? it seems like their whole goal in life is to destroy your faith.
i had several of them when i went to school. they just want to destroy your confidence. charles lyell said his goal was to "free the science from moses". what do you suppose he meant by that? well, before lyell's book everyone looked at something like the grand canyon and they'd say, "wow - look what the flood did!" he did not like people interpreting earth's history in the light of the bible. he wanted them to interpret earth's history in terms of millions of years. lyell was the primary person responsible for inventing what is known as the "geologic column". how many of you have ever heard of the geologic column before?
they divided the earth up into layers and gave them all technical-sounding names. cenozoic, mesozoic, paleozoic, and other kinds of big names. maybe you saw the movie, "jurassic park" named after the jurassic layer. each layer of rock was given a name, and an age, and an index fossil. now keep in mind that all of this was done in 1830 before there ever was carbon dating. also potassium-argon dating; rubidium-strontium dating; lead 208; lead 206; uranium-235 & 238; none of those had even been thought of. so they did not determine those long ages by any radio-metric decay method. they just picked the numbers out of the clear blue sky.
it is a fact that the earth has many layers of sedimentary rock. that is a fact. how did they get there? well, there are two interpretations. one group says that the layers formed slowly over millions of year. the other group says, no, these layers are all from the flood in the days of noah. but they are always trying to erase that line between the two and make their interpretation become part of the facts. and it's just not. that is their interpretation, that is all. the geologic column is actually the bible for the evolutionist. the only place in the world - that you will ever find it - is in the textbooks! it does not exist. in this textbook, they admit it.
the author wrote, "if there were a column of sediments unfortunately no such column exists." did you know that there is no real "geologic column"? if there was it would be 100 miles (160 km) thick! it doesn't not exist. one of the lies in the textbooks. actually - all of evolution is based on this lie right here. this lie is one of the most serious ones, in my opinion. it is true that the earth has layers. that is not the question. but how did those layers get there? i mean, if that layer sat there for 10 million years, waiting for the next one
don't you think it is going to rain once in a while? in 10 million years? why are there no erosion marks between the layers? why are they stacked right on top of each other just pancakes? and by the way, why are there no soil layers between the rock layers? soil builds up on top of rock, right? shouldn't there be some soil layers in there? if you get a jar and fill it with dirt, rocks, gravel, sand and mud and shake it up and then set it down - it will settle into layers for you in a few minutes. it doesn't take long. how many of you have seen those things you buy at the mall with two pieces of glass?
they add different kinds of sand in between and you flip it over. in moments it makes all kinds of layers. it does not take long. years ago, i was preaching at a place in union center, south dakota. now union center is right there. it is too small to be on the map, actually. and south dakota puts a lot of small towns onto their maps. there were 40 people in the whole town. 38 of them came to church that night. (maybe the other two were pulling a calf) we had a great meeting. and the pastor there said that we should go down to rapid city.
he said that they have a lot of dinosaur bones in the museum there. alright - i like dinosaurs! so the next day we all drove down to rapid city. we came to this museum, and the official guide met us at the door. he asked if we would like for him to give us a tour. we replied that that would be great, sir. so - the first place we stopped at on the tour was the "geologic time chart". they have it lit up in a special place, safely behind glass. we stood there and the guide told us that a particular layer of rock was 70 million years old. he had that sanctimonious tone in his voice. somberly, "70 million years old".
well, my daughter was 12 years old at the time. she raised her hand. she asked, "mister, how do you know that the layer is 70 million years old?" he said, "honey, that is a good question." "we tell the age of the layers by what types of fossils we find in them." they are called "index fossils". and that is correct; that is what the textbooks teach. "scientists use index fossils to determine the age of rock layers." she said, "thank you, sir." we walked around to the other side. and he told us that those bones were about 100 million years old. my daughter raised her hand again.
she asked, "sir, how do you know those bones are 100 million years old?" he said, "well, we tell the age of the bones by which layer they came from." she said, "well sir, when we were standing over there " you told me that you know the age of the layers by the bones. "now you are telling me that you know the age of the bones by the layers. "sir, isn't that circular reasoning?" i thought wow, a chip off the old block. that guy had the strangest look on his face. it was almost as though he were thinking.
he looked at my daughter. then he looked at me. -i wasn't about to help him! i thought, wow, this is going to be good. i have got to hear his answer. he looked back at my daughter and said, "you are right. that is circular reasoning." he said that he had never thought of that before. that fella drove 50 miles each way that evening to hear me speak in that tiny town. the crowd swelled from 38 to 39! we set up a chair in the aisle. afterwards he talked to me for an hour or so. he asked, "dr. hovind, is everything i believe about geology wrong?" he also taught geology at the college there.
i told him that i like geology. i have a huge fossil collection. i have a rock collection; a mineral collection; i teach earth science; i love studying geology. but as far as the layers being different ages -i said yes sir, i'm sorry, that is all baloney. it is based on circular reasoning. i will show you. here is a text that tells kids to "date the rocks by the fossils." and then on the next page it says to "date the fossils by the rocks." on the next page and they don't catch it. this is a lie; it is circular reasoning. "the intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning
" in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks." "but the geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, " feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results." "it cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle." "the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain." they date the rocks by the fossils, and the fossils by the rocks. "ever since the beginning of the 19th century, " fossils have been and still are the best and most accurate method " of dating and correlating the rocks in which they occur."
"apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, " i can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils." they don't date fossils by using potassium-argon dating or carbon-14 dating. that is not how they do it. "radiometric dating would not be possible if the geologic column had not been erected first." "there is no way to simply look at a fossil and say how old it is ... "...unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from." it was niles eldredge who said that! he is one of the most famous evolutionists alive today.
he said, "and this poses something of a problem " no kidding. it poses a big problem! "if we date the rocks by the fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?" circular reasoning. this guy says "the rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately." i think the cheese fell out of his sandwich, that's what i think. this is all based on circular reasoning. another guy said, "the charge of circular reasoning can be handled in several ways."
"it can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public." "it can be denied, by calling down the law of evolution." "it can be admitted, as a common practice or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning." but again, it is all based on circular reasoning. actually, at the scopes monkey trial in 1925 over in dayton, tennessee this is what they wanted to use as evidence for evolution. "the lowest layers are obviously the oldest." from page 275 of the court transcript. no, the lowest layers are not necessarily the oldest. did you know that in still water the sedimentary layers do settle from top to bottom?
that is correct. but in moving water - you can make 5 or 10 layers form simultaneously. they form from one end and travel across. so it is possible to have a fossil on the bottom that is younger than a fossil on top. if it's moving water. there is a great video tape called, "experiments in stratification" for more information on this. or get our video #6 for additional information. i like to question the evolutionists. their geologic column contains limestone in many places. if i handed you a piece of limestone how would you know if it is 100 million years old jurrasic limestone or 600 million years old cambrian limestone? exactly what is the difference?
they'd say that the only way to tell the difference is by the index fossils. that, of course, is precisely my point. they date the layers by the fossils. this textbook shows the kids a trilobiyte. it says boys and girls, trilobites make good index fossils. if a trilobite is found in a rock layer, then the rock layer was probably formed 500 to 600 million years ago." i don't think so. somebody found a human shoe print, where the guy's shoe stepped on a trilobite. they asked evolutionists all over how on earth could a human step on a trilobite? if trilobites lived 500 million years ago and man didn't get here till some 3 million years ago
and folks didn't start wearing shoes until about 10,000 years ago, they say. how could a human have stepped on a trilobite? well, one atheist said that obviously some aliens must have visited the planet 500 million years ago. oh, those aliens will do it everytime. another guy said that maybe there was a large trilobite, shaped like a shoe, that fell on a small one. now, there have been some big trilobites out there. but they are not shaped like a shoe. actually, the trilobite has the most complicated eyeball ever! trilobite eyes are unbelieveable.
and they believe that this was one of the first creatures to evolve? and it already has the most complex eyes?! just the eye is one of the most complex features. no, trilobites are not "index fossils" for anything. there are all kinds of different trilobites and there are probably some still alive today. certainly the baltic isopod is still alive. recently a guy sent me a jar full of trilobites from the prudhoe bay, alaska water treatment plant. when the package arrived in pensacola, florida - they were still alive in the jar! but i don't know how to keep a trilobite alive. what do you feed them?
they all died. they are now in our museum down in pensacola. somebody just sent me a large one from somewhere in the caribbean. it is about 15 inches (40 cm) long. he had pulled it off a rock, it was still alive. the name for it down there is some kind of sea "roach". a roach? it looked to me like a big trilobite! this textbook shows the kids a graptolite. they claim that it is 410 million years old. no, i don't think so. actually graptolites have been found still alive in the south pacific 10 years ago. so if you find graptolite, you can't use that as an "index fossil" for any age rock, ok.
they tell the kids in school that the lobe-finned fish is the index fossil for devonian. 325 million years old. see that short leg boys and girls? he's got a little bitty leg and then the fin. that proves he's evolving from a leg to a fin. no, that's a lie. the lobe-finned fish, are still alive today, they're swimming around the indian ocean. when they caught the first one 1938 the scientists looked at it and said, "wow, would you look at that, they survived for 325 million years." it never dawned on them even once to question their faith in the geologic column. that thought never crossed their brains.
you don't question the geologic column, it is holy and sacred. you just have to say, "it survived for 325 million years." that is in the textbooks today. and they still say that it is the index fossil! even though they know they are swimming around in the ocean. how can they be that dumb? this lady wrote a book about it: "a fish caught in time." yes, boys and girls, this is "our own great-uncle forty million times removed." she does look a little fishy, doesn't she? especially around her gills there. you are going to be told that some dinosaurs are the index fossils for the jurassic period. 70 million, or cretaceous, 70 million, years ago. that's baloney!
dinosaur bones were found recently that had blood cells still in them. how long are the blood cells last? there are also examples of soft tissue discovered within dinosaur bones, still flexible. that was in march of 2005. here are fossilized human hands found in the same rock strata as dinosaur bones. they will tell you that the layers are different ages, but that is not true. charles darwin liked detail-sounding numbers. so he claimed that the wealden deposits in england were 306,662,400 years old. how could he have possibly known such a thing?
all over the world petrified trees are found standing up. effectively they connect multiple rock layers. petrified trees found in the upright position. now, how long does a dead tree stay standing up before it falls down? maybe 5 or 10 years, right? 5 million year? oh no, not 5 million. and yet, petrified trees in the vertical position are found all over the planet. i'll just flash through some pictures real quick here. there are all kinds of petrified trees found standing up. and they are running through multiple layers.
and the kids are being taught that the layers are different ages. and yet here's one tree connecting them all. i am having a hard time believing that these layers are different ages. central alabama has a large coal mine with a whole bunch of petrified trees standing up running through two seams of coal. the blue creek and the mary lee. now they're going to tell you in school, for coal to form a forest it has to grow and then it all falls over and turns into a swamp and then it gets buried. and then new mud washes in on top and coal slowly forms from the forest that was buried. then thousands of years later another forest grows on top. and a whole new layer of coal forms. so if you find two layers of coal, oh that took thousands of years. that's what they'll tell you in school. that is simply baloney. we cover more on coal formation in seminar #6.
if you look at some of the trees found in this coal mine, just look at all of them. i think i can prove these two coal formations formed at the same time, very quickly, within a few weeks or months of each other, that's for sure. they all probably formed during the flood in the days of noah. in cookville, tennessee, how far is cookville frome here?... in cookville, tennessee there is a a coal mine with petrified trees. it is coalified at the bottom - petrified in the middle - and then coalified on top! where it went through a second coal seam. it is all the same tree. by the way, why are coal seams usually found right on top or rock or clay? wouldn't that be a poor place to grow a forest? it ought to be on top of soil don't you think?
polystrate fossils are found all over the world. in joggins, nova scotia, there are dozens of petrified trees standing up connecting rock layers. the scientists just go up there and look at them, "wow, that is curious." no, it is more than curious. it is devastating to their teaching, that the layers are different ages. there is a brochure you can get from us, only $2, that has 30 color pictures of polystrate fossils. occasionally, the petrified trees are found upside-down running through many rock layers. now they have really got a problem. i have thought about this until my brain hurts. the evolutionists have two ways to solve this. they can say that the trees stood upright for millions of years while the layers formed around them.
or, maybe the trees grew through hundreds of feet of solid rock looking for sunlight. but there is a third way to look at it - maybe they were all buried in a big flood. mount st. helens blew thousands of trees into spirit lake on may 18, 1980. lots of those trees are now stuck in the mud at the bottom of spirit lake. they are going to petrify in the standing position. we have more in seminar #6 about that. it does not take long for things to petrify. here is petrified firewood that was choppped on - before it turned to stone. this is a mummified dog that is stuck in a tree.
apparently he chased a racoon up a tree and got stuck there. here is a petrified cowboy boot with the cowboy's leg still in it. the boot was originally made in 1950. the leg inside has turned to stone. this is a petrified fish giving birth. it does not take millions of years to give birth. this is a petrified hat. and a petrified pickle that was found in a jar. the guy sent me the jar and pickle. he said that he'd found it in montana. it was an old abandoned home. he asked me if i wanted a petrified pickle for our museum. i said, "of course, who in their right mind would not want a petrified pickle!" come down to dinosaur adventure land - and see the petrified pickle.
these are petrified sacks of flour that were found in an old flour mill. it had flooded back in 1910, down in arkansas. this is a petrified toad stool. there is an amazing gem and mineral museum just south of bloomington, illinois. in a little tiny town called shirley illinois, you have to be trying to find it to get there. but it's worth going to see the funk gem and mineral museum. these are petrified acorns. a kid sent them to me. he said that he was seven years old when he put them into a bucket of water. he thought they would sprout and make trees. but he forgot about them. by the next spring the acorns had turned to stone.
he asked if we would like them for our museum. i said, "of course." come down and see the petrified acorns. we have more on petrification in seminar #6. so kids, when they tell you the layers are different ages, you tell them kent hovind said they are confused or they're lying. it is not correct. this is lie number 5. those layers all formed, nearly all of them, at the time of noah's flood. eighty to 85% of earth's surface does not even have 3 geologic periods appearing in consecutive order. even though this geologic column does not exist in the world - except in the textbooks - that teaching is what changed people, in the 1830's, away from believing the bible to believing in uniformitarianism.
this teaching especially affected a young preacher. he just got out of bible college, studied to be a pastor of a church. his name was charles darwin. anybody ever heard of charles darwin? charles darwin graduated from bible college to be a preacher. and he was going to sail around the world for 5 years first. he would collect some bugs for some "bugologists" back there in england. so he brought some books with him. he brought his bible, of course. he just got out of bible college, and he brought this brand new book, "principles of geology". darwin later said that book changed his life forever.
later, he wrote to a friend and said, "disbelief [in the bible] crept over me slowly. i felt no distress." he slowly lost his faith in the bible. as darwin sailed around the world, the ship stopped off at the galapagos islands. there in those islands, he noticed there were 14 different varieties of finches. these are little tiny birds with a little tiny beak, but the beak shapes were different. more recently folks went there and studied them some more. they found out that during dry years, the beak is a tenth of a millimeter thicker. and during wet years, it's a tenth of a millimeter thinner. but it always averages back out. a tenth of a millimeter…do you know how much that is? not much.
darwin looked at the birds and said, "you know what? i think all these birds had a common ancestor." i bet you're right, charles, it was … a bird. but then charlie said, "well, maybe this proves that birds and bananas are related." you say, "he never says that". well, he sure did. i knew you wouldn't believe me so i brought his book. it's right here. "the origin of species" by charles darwin. on page 170, darwin says, "it's a truly wonderful fact that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other." isn't he saying that the birds and bananas are related? he sure is. this is a lie. what charlie observed is what is sometimes called micro-evolution.
micro-evolution tells us that dogs produce a variety of dogs. that's a fact. it happens, okay? and roses produce a variety of roses. nobody is arguing about that. the question is, does it go any farther than that? you may get a big dog or a little dog, but you get a dog every time. and probably the dog, the wolf, and the coyote had a common ancestor. i wouldn't argue about that. we did a test this morning. we had a 5-year-old girl. we said, ok, here we have a dog, a wolf, a coyote and a banana. which one is not like the others? she got it … the banana. we've got college professors can't figure that out.
as national geographic says the evolution of dogs from wolves. well, duh. nobody's arguing about that. yeah, dogs came from wolves. the bible says they bring forth after their kind. ten times it says that in the first chapter of genesis. see, this word "evolution" has 6 different meanings. we've been through this before, so i'm going to go through it kind of quickly. there is first of all "cosmic evolution", the big bang. secondly, "chemical evolution" where all the chemicals come from hydrogen. that's baloney. thirdly, "stellar evolution" where all the stars formed from dust. you cannot get dust to condense into a solid star. it can't happen.
there's boyle's gas laws that drive it away, ok? then, there's enough stars out there though, we can all have 11 trillion to ourselves. then you have "organic evolution" where life gets started from non-living material. and then "macro-evolution" where an animal changes to a different kind of animal. none of those 5 have ever been observed! number 6: variations within the kinds, sometimes called "micro-evolution". that one happens. the first 5 are religious. so whenever you discuss evolution, you have to define what you're talking about. if you're talking about #6, i'm with you. i agree that happens. if you're talking about the first 5 - none of those happen. those are things that they believe happens.
watch how they change the definition for the kids. they say, "okay, boys and girls, evolution is change over time. oh, is that really what they mean? watch this carefully now. in other words, living things have changed over time. wait, wait, wait. are they going to skip over the first four? they just want to bypass the first 4 stages like it's not part of the theory? well then, they don't have a coherent theory. then they say, "evolution can be defined as a change in species over time". now they're down to what i believe in. i think every species can and do change. i think you can get some really weird varieties of animals, but they're still the same kind. okay?
this is a lie, kids, that's not really what they mean by evolution. they want to give you examples of only #6 and make you believe that the whole theory has been proven. don't get brainwashed. evolution is not true. most evolutionists will say, "well, macro-evolution is just micro- but with longer periods of time." no, it's not. they had a big conference on this very question in chicago. they said, "the central question of the chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution." the answer can be given as a clear - no. it doesn't work. variations happen, sure, but they have limits.
did you know, farmers have been trying to get bigger pigs for a long time. you think they'll ever get a pig as big as texas? i bet there's a size limit, isn't there? roaches become resistant to pesticides. do you think they'll ever become resistant to a sledgehammer? probably not. you see, there's a tiger that had 3 kittens, all different colors, same litter. that's variations, but it's still a tiger. that's not evolution. they always end up producing the same kind of offspring - just like the bible says. the information for the new variety had to be in the gene code already or it couldn't produce it. no new information is ever added. the gene pool of the new variety is always more limited. somebody spent years cross-breeding dogs to develop the chihuahua.
all of that money to make a dog that is 100% useless. i mean, think about it. how long would the chihuahuas last in the real world. turn them all loose into the woods. watch what happens. they run up to the wolf. yap, yap, yap, yap, yap, yap. crunch, end of gene code, right? genetic information is lost, not added, when you get a strange variety. real evolution would need an increase in genetic complexity. we don't ever observe that. i grew up in illinois, that is corn country. did you know they have so many kinds of corn up there, they have to number them? you can be driving down the highway, and there's a sign that says bx65. don’t mix it with xl29, something will explode.
well, folks, you can cross-breed corn a lot, but you are always going to get corn. you're never going to get a hamster to a tomato or a whale to grow on your cornstalk. it just isn't going to happen, ok? there are many varieties of dogs in the world, and they might have had a common ancestor….a dog. here's bbc news: "it looks like 95% of current dogs came from just 3 original founding females." hey, they're getting closer. right here it says, "today's dogs come in all shapes and sizes, but scientists believe they evolved from just a handful of wolves tamed by humans living in or near china less than 15,000 years ago." they're getting closer. man, if they keep studying the science, they're going to be an independent baptist when they're done.
when you get done climbing the mountain of truth, that's where you end up, you know? this irish textbook calls it divergent evolution. oh, come on. they show 5 dogs around a wolf. that's not divergent evolution. don't give it a fancy name. it's still a dog. it's just a variety of dog. this mexican textbook says, "the horse and the zebra had a common ancestor." i agree. it looked like a horse. you know, all the standard horse equipment. they've got little tiny horses today. we had the world's smallest horse come visit our dinosaur adventure land. talk about useless. i mean, you can't ride it. well, my granddaughter could, but it won't bark like a dog either. what do you do with a horse like this? you know, horses, zebras and asses can all be crossbred. they have a competition in california - who can get the weirdest animal.
they'll get: zorses, zonkeys, zeonies, z-donks, zebrass, and shebras. here's a zebra who forgot to put his pajamas on. here's a herd of zebroids running around. you know, in the last hundred years, the kentucky derby has gone from an average running speed of 127 seconds down to 123 seconds. even in the old days, they had some pretty low times turned in. question: how much money has been spent on breeding trying to get the fastest horse for the kentucky derby? millions and millions of dollars. they do the same thing right around here, don't they? don't some folks spend a lot of money for a tennessee walker horse? what's the most expensive tennessee walking horse that you've ever heard of?
a million dollars for one horse? three million for one horse? that's how much per pound? when i was in italy, we ate horse over there. it was good too. it tasted like chicken. i don't know if they've gotten to the absolute limits of horse speed or not. i don't know. but i suspect they're getting kind of close, ok? if you really want to win the kentucky derby, why don't you breed wings on your horse and fly around the track in 12 seconds? the whole point is…sure, you get varieties, but they're limited. there are many different kinds of cows in the world, and they might have a common ancestor….a cow. there are magazines where you order chickens. all right, boys and girls, which kind of chicken breed should we order?
look at what the magazine says, "jungle fowl are the original bird from which all varieties and strains of domesticated chickens are derived." did you know all the chickens had a common ancestor? anybody want to guess what it was? chicken. you got it. there are 8 kinds of bears in the world, and they might have had a common ancestor…a bear. you know, broccoli, cabbage, cauliflower, and brussel sprouts all have a common ancestor. it is called a plant. in california, they have huge fields where they graft english walnut trees onto black walnut stumps. they do it because for the black walnut stump, the root system is tough.
it can handle the weather over there. but the black walnut doesn't taste as good, it doesn’t sell for as much money, and it's tougher to crack. english walnuts taste better. they sell for more money, and they're easier to crack, but the root system rots. so they cut them off and stick them together. they do it all over there. well, they can do it because they're both a walnut. see, you could never graft an english walnut tree onto the back of a turtle. that won't work, see? the sugar beets were used for years when sugar got expensive. they wanted to get sugar out of beets. so they tried to do selective breeding to increase the sugar content in sugar beets.
they raised it from 6% to 17%, but that was the maximum. you can't go past 17, and the further they got away from the normal wild sugar beet, the more problems they started having. now you've got to babysit the field and spray pesticides and everything else on it because its disease resistance goes down. people say, "don't bacteria become resistant to drugs?" well, that's because they lose information, not gain it. i'll show you. dr. spetner points out, "this is based on a misunderstanding. for the mutations that cause antibiotic resistance still involve information loss. for example, to destroy bacteria, the antibiotic streptomycin attaches
to part of the bacterial cell called ribosomes. mutations sometimes cause a structural deformity in ribosomes. since the antibiotic cannot connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant." even though this mutation turns out to be beneficial for the moment, it still constitutes a loss of information, not a gain. no evolution has taken place. the bacteria are not stronger. in fact, under normal conditions with no antibiotic present, they are weaker than their non-mutated cousins." i'll give you an example. suppose somebody's come into your town, and they're handcuffing everybody. they take them off to jail, and then, they're going to kill them. but you don't have any arms.
so they can't handcuff you. ha, ha, ha. is that a beneficial mutation to not have arms? well, yeah, for the moment, ok? but in the long-term, it's not beneficial, right? and so all the examples they ever point to are bacteria becoming resistant to drugs. that's a loss of information, not a gain. the bible is correct. they bring forth after their kind. james hutton wrote a book in 1795, and people began to doubt the earth was 6000 years old. charles lyell wrote a book in 1830, and people began to doubt the flood. and charles darwin's book made people doubt the creator. by the mid-1800s, people were wondering, "wow, if god didn't do it, how did we get here?" "who's in charge of the world?" that led directly to the rise of communism, marxism, socialism, nazism.
we'll cover that on seminar part 5: politically incorrect, "the dangers of this evolution theory". now darwin didn't originate the evolution theory. it was around a long time before him. he just simply made it popular. but timothy was warned by paul here in 1 timothy 6:20 - "ye be careful about avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." evolution is not science. evolution is a religion in every sense of the word. hitler said, "let me control the textbooks and i will control the state." professor e.o. wilson at 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." he lost his faith the first year of college. that's what happened to phillip wentworth who studied for the ministry at harvard, lost his faith, gave up on the ministry. that's what happened to a young man named, scott, from iowa. he almost lost his faith until someone showed him one of my video tapes, and he said, "oh man, you saved my faith, brother hovind." marty, from ontario, canada, wrote me and said, "i want to let you know, your ministry has been a blessing to me. i'm one of the high school students in the anthropology class that is a victim of the dangers of evolution teaching.
i was very discouraged and questioned the existence of god. i listened to your seminars and that completely encouraged me and was a blessing to me." yeah, rescued one. it's amazing how many thousands of people down through history have lost their faith because of this evolution teaching. karl marx studied and had said that he wanted to serve god with his life. he went off to college to study philosophy and became an evolutionist. comrade joseph stalin….there was a special this afternoon on tv. how many saw that about comrade stalin on the history channel? he went to a christian school, but he also read darwin's book.
he became an atheist and killed between 60 and 100 million of his own people! andrew carnegie became an evolutionist by reading darwin's book. he said it freed him from the shackles of religion. "light came in as a flood. all was clear. not only had i got rid of theology and the supernatural, but i found the truth of evolution." carnegie left behind millions of dollars to make sure evolution is taught in our schools instead of creation. he funded the "national center for science in education". the list is really long. we'll have to quit now. but 75% of kids from christian homes who go to public schools lose their faith after 1 year of college. what's in these textbooks anyway? what are they teaching our kids that's making them lose their faith? we'll cover more lies in the textbooks in the next session. (end of seminar 4a)
start of seminar 4b - dr. kent hovind - in english there's still no known evidence to support the evolution theory. it was disproven long ago. if real evidence exists for this evolution theory, i would like to see it. we've been offering a quarter of a million dollars for real scientific evidence for evolution. we've had that offer for over 10 years. there isn't any evidence. i'll give you an example. suppose i had a theory that the moon is made of green cheese. now that's a dumb theory, i know, but hey, it's okay to have a dumb theory. there are no laws against dumb theories. but then suppose i started teaching my students, "hey kids, did you know nasa proved my theory in 1973 when they went there
on a secret mission and drilled a hole and found the moon is made of green cheese?" well now, hold on a minute. it's okay to have a dumb theory. it's not okay to lie about my evidence for my theory. it is worse for me to get paid by tax dollars while i lie about my theory. so i don't mind if they want to have a theory that we came from a rock. that doesn't bother me. it does bother me that they want to lie to the students about their evidence. and it really bothers me that i have to pay their salary while they lie to support their theory. so here's some of the (supposed) evidence they use for evolution theory. they say, "we have evidence from fossils." i say, "guys, you've got to be kidding."
no fossil counts as evidence for evolution. none. if you can find bones in the dirt, all you know is it died. you don't know it had any kids. no fossil could count as evidence for evolution. none. they say, "we have evidence from structure, from molecular biology, from development." well, let's talk about a few of these. evolution is dead. the theory is defunct. there is no evidence to support it. but some of the followers are pretty dedicated, and they're having a hard time letting it go. they'll even lie to you to make you think everything's fine. they say, "wow, look at that evolution theory. it's perfectly fine. there's no challenge to evolution." "look, it never looked better. pulse and heart rate look good." no, i'm sorry, he's a goner.
don't be the last one off the boat. it is sinking. evolution is based on 2 faulty assumptions. number 1: they say mutations make something new. that's never been observed. number 2: natural selection makes us survive and take over the population. evolution is actually a religion of death. in order for evolution to work, one animal evolves a little better than the rest. what must happen to the rest of them to make this thing work? they've got to die or else the new improved gene is swamped back into the gene code. the question is so simple and profound. "did man bring death into the world?" like the bible says - or -
"did death bring man into the world?" like evolution says. somebody is wrong. the textbook says there are mutations, and they are the original source of variation in populations. i agree. mutations happen, no question. but mutations do not produce any evolution. mutations are scrambling up existing genetic code. they're not making anything new. here's a 5-legged bull that's a mutant. there's no new information added. he already had the information on how to make a leg. it just made one in the wrong place, that's all. it's not new information. it is scrambled information. here's a short-legged sheep. again, no new information. and by the way, that's not beneficial. he's the first one the wolf is going to catch. right? oh no, let's run! here comes the wolf!
brrrr…uh-huh, herman didn't make it, umm. there's a 2-headed lamb. that's a mutant. it's not beneficial. two-headed turtle, that's a mutant. it's not a ninja, but it's a mutant. now, he's going to freeze his first winter because nobody makes a double-necked turtle-necked sweater. he's just not going to make it. now scrambling up the letters of the word "christmas" will get you all sorts of different words. but it will never get you xerox, zebra or queen. the letters aren't available. this textbook shows the kids a 4-winged fly. by the way cannot fly, and it says, "boys and girls, normal fruit flies have 2 wings. this mutant has four. this rare mutation, like most mutations, is harmful." then it says, "beneficial mutations are the raw material for natural selection."
well, now, hold on a minute. why don't they show us an example of a beneficial mutation? why do they tell us about the good ones and not show us a picture of a good one? you know why they didn't show a picture of good mutation? because nobody's ever seen one. there's never been one beneficial mutation. i said that in a debate one time, and this atheist said, "hovind, you're lying." he said, "i can name a beneficial mutation right now." he said, "people in africa that get sickle cell anemia are less likely to get malaria." i said, "that's brilliant, sir. that's like saying if you cut off your legs, you can't get athletes' foot. um-hmm." (laughter) they're both negative. then they say evolution and natural selection go together.
this one says, "natural selection causes evolution." that's a lie. natural selection selects. it doesn't create anything. natural selection is not a creative force. natural selection may be a stabilizing force, but it's not a creative force. anybody with half a brain could figure that out. natural selection cannot create any properties. it can only select. this textbook says, "evolution by natural selection had occurred in just 1 year." oh, they're lying. it says, "natural selection can lead to evolution." that's a lie. natural selection selects. it doesn't create a thing. this is lie number 8. if you worked in a factory to make cars…how far is the saturn plant from here? pretty close, isn't it? how many of you, anybody here work in the saturn plant? okay.
suppose you worked in quality control. your job was to check the car when they got done building it, you know, kick the tires, slam the doors, and drive it around to see if it runs. if you caught every single mistake (they don't, by the way), but if you did, how long would it take that quality control process to change the car into an airplane? you say, "hovind, quality control can't change it to something else." oh, i know. only design engineers can change it. and god's natural selection is a quality control that will never change it to a different animal. it will just make sure you get a good animal, that's all. they keep talking about "survival of the fittest".
well, i agree, but that doesn't explain "arrival of the fittest". and even survival of the fittest is pretty shaky. it's what's called a tautology - a sentence that means nothing. i'll show you. you could say, "professor, why did it survive?" he'll say, "oh, because it's the fittest. you know, survival of the fittest." how do you know it's the fittest? "uh, because it survived. how else can you tell?" oh, i see. look, if a whale goes through a school of fish and eats 80% of them, it's not survival of the fittest. it's actually survival of the luckiest. that's what's really going on out there. but some of these scientists have the ability to make amazing observations and still come to the wrong conclusion.
one day, a bunch of scientists were going to see how far a frog could jump. they put the big old frog down there and said, "jump, frog, jump!" that frog jumped 80 inches. they brought the frog back, cut off 1 leg, and said, "jump, frog, jump!" he only jumped 70. they brought him back, cut off another leg, and said, "jump, frog, jump!" he went 60. they brought him back, cut off another leg, and said, "jump, frog, jump!" he jumped 50 inches. they brought the frog back, cut off his last leg, and said, "jump, frog, jump!" you know, they expected he might go maybe 40 based on the data. actual jump was zero. the frog didn't move. they yelled louder. "jump, frog!" the frog never moved. the scientists were baffled. they tried the experiment again. new frog. got the same results every time.
so the brilliant scientists put their data together and said, "you know what, folks? the frog jumped less as the legs were removed." hey, that's a good observation. they got it right on the head. then, they said, "so we must conclude that a frog with no legs goes deaf." (laughter) bad conclusion. it's possible to have a good observation and still come to the wrong conclusion, you know. that's what they did with the fruit flies. they put some flies in the laboratory, they nuked them, microwaved them, x-rayed them. they did all kinds of mean things to those flies, and they got some weird looking baby flies. they got flies with curled wings. they fly around, bzzzzzz, couldn't go anywhere.
they got flies with no wings at all. hmm. what do you call that, a crawl or a walk? it can't fly. they raised all these mutated flies in the laboratory and said, "you know what, folks? fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies." well, duhh! so they said, "all mutations produced flies that are inferior to the original fly." good observation. they said, "so we must conclude that flies have evolved as far as they can go." oh, bad conclusion. you know, maybe you could conclude that god made them right to begin with and all you're doing is messing them up in your laboratory. they were doing fine until you guys got hold of them. yeah. then they say, "evolution is as fit as ever.
the fruit flies in the north have wings 4% larger than flies in the south." well, that proves something to somebody somewhere, i'm sure. but it's still a fly. then, they tell the kids the peppered moth is proof for evolution. they counted the moths in the trees and found there were 95% light-colored and 5% black. then, they burned coal in the factories, and the trees turned black. and they counted the moths again, and there were only 5% light and 95% black. the problem is the entire story is a lie. lie number 9. they glued dead moths to the tree to take that picture for your kid's textbook. it's right here. where is this book used at, brother? it's not used anymore? peppered moth.
it's still in the new books though. evidence for evolution. those are dead moths glued on a tree because after 40 years of watching, they found a grand total of 2 moths sitting on tree trunks. only two moths. let's see, what's 95% of 2? wow, i'll have to do some figuring on that one. they still keep it in the textbooks though as evidence for evolution. what's the tulsa zoo doing having a peppered moth display? i mean, this is a zoo for heaven's sake! why do they push evolution in a zoo? you can get the book, "icons of evolution", if you want a whole lot more on the history of this peppered moth idea. but they tell the kids, "we're going to learn to think critically.
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. did you know it's possible for the question to already have a built-in assumption? look at that question. do you think humans are still evolving? what's the built-in assumption? that humans evolved. how's a christian kid supposed to answer that in his homework for monday, hmmm? i would say, "teacher, this question is poorly written. it assumes evolution has happened when it has not." it's like asking the question, "why are elephants orange?" boy, now there's a tough one. why are they orange anyway? uh, they're not orange, um-hmm. this is not learning to think critically.
this is a soviet-style indoctrination-type brainwashing question. and when the kid gets done taking this class, he's going to think he knows how to think. but he doesn't. he knows how to be told what to believe. and he never understands how it happened to him. that's not thinking critically. then, they tell the kids, "we've got evidence for evolution from homologous structures." wow, what's that mean? yes, boys and girls, did you know you have 2 bones in your wrist. and they're called the radius and the ulna? pretty cool. and did you know, the alligator has 2 bones in his forelimb, and look at this, they're called radius and ulna? see that? that proves we are related. that's what they're going to tell them.
"homologous structures provide evidence that these animals evolved from a common ancestor." it's found in just about every textbook. you've got them in these other ones up here, i'm sure, don't you, steve? homologous structure as evidence for evolution. "they descended from a common ancestor," the textbook says. think critically. the bones are the same, boys and girls. "see, that proves we're related." evolved from a forelimb of a common ancestor. this textbook says, "comparative anatomy provides further evidence of evolution. the commonality suggests that these and other vertebrate animals are all related.
they probably evolved from a common ancestor." this is a lie. they probably have a common designer, um-hmmm. you know that different bones in different animals come from different genes on the chromosomes? they're not homologous to begin with. and even if they were, that still wouldn't prove common ancestor. it proves a common designer. the same designer made them all. did you know that lug nuts from a pontiac will fit on a chevy? you go out in the parking lot and try it. they will. that proves that both evolved from a honda 14 million years ago! no. it's true many animals have a similar forelimb structure. that's a good observation. i agree. they say, "they must have had a common ancestor." oh, bad conclusion.
then they'll say, "this helps prove we all came from a rock." well, now you really have got a bad conclusion there. then, they tell the kids, "we have evidence from development." now this one makes me angry. so i'm going to try to stay calm while we talk about it. this is probably one of the most dangerous lies in the textbooks. let me just calm down now. ok, i'm ready. this textbook says, "the similarity between early stages of development . of many different animals helped convince darwin that all forms of life shared common ancestors. darwin considered this the strongest class of facts in favor of his theory."
this was the best evidence darwin knew of for his theory. the guy who made up this dumb idea is named ernst haeckel. haeckel called this idea we are about to share with you the "biogenetic law".. it means that as animals develop inside the mother, they go through the stages of evolution. all you've got to do is memorize the word farm, f-a-r-m. fish; amphibian; reptile; mammal. that's the way they say it happened. the phrase they had for it back then was, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." wow. what's all that mean? well, ontogeny is the growth of the baby. it goes through stages, they say. recapitulates means it reenacts or does over again. phylogeny is the evolutionary sequence.
this irish textbook says, "the presence of fish-like structures in embryos of different species shows these animals have evolved from fish and share the basic pattern of fish development. it's as if the embryo retains a memory of its origins and starts to copy them during its development." that's the "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny". now, the idea that sigmund freud relied on, was the idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny. that is, the development of the individual recapitulates the evolution of the entire species. this is stupid and dangerous. they tell the kids the embryo or the baby growing in the mother has gills like a fish. gills? that's a lie. those are not gill slits. lie number 11. those little folds of skin you see on the embryo grow into bones in the ear and glands in the throat.
they never have anything to do with breathing. my uncle had 5 or 6 chins. and he couldn't breathe through any of them but the top one. those are not gill slits. ernst haeckel said the turning point in his thinking was when he read darwin's book in 1860. see, darwin's book was printed in english in 1859. the next year, it was printed in german, 1860. haeckel was a german embryology professor. he read the book and said, "wow, what a great theory. if only we had some evidence." well, 9 years later, they still had no evidence, so haeckel decided to help out. he was going to make some evidence. haeckel took a drawing of a dog and a human embryo. he was an embryology professor, you know, and - he lied. he faked the drawings.
he changed them and made them look exactly alike to try to prove that they're related. it just is a bald-faced lie. haeckel made giant posters of his fake drawings and traveled all over germany and converted the people to believing in evolution. and this led to the next obvious question: hey, if evolution is true, i wonder which race of humans has evolved the farthest? and guess who the germans thought it was. oh, yeah, we'll talk more about that later. now, on top are haeckel's fake drawings, then underneath are the actual photographs of these animals. he lied. his own university held a trial and convicted him of fraud. he said at the trial, "i should feel utterly condemned were it not that hundreds
of the best observers and biologists lie under the same charge." this biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. it's not true, but it can't be taken out of the textbooks for some reason. it's been proven wrong since 1875, and they still keep it in the books. it's still used in this book, "evolutionary analysis", college textbook, 1998 edition. it is used at the university of west florida, with the exact same chart from ernst haeckel. now, it's only been proven wrong since 1875. i know it takes a while to get textbooks up-to-date, but that's long enough. i think 130 years, they ought to be able to get it out by now, don't you think?
more about the gill slits in this book: "icons of evolution". darwin's theory, his book came out in 1859. he predicted they would find evidence. in 1869, haeckel faked the drawings. in 1875, it was proven wrong, but it's still in textbooks used all over the planet. a 2004 textbook still has it. a 2005 textbook, and i pronounced it wrong, it's chickasha, oklahoma. i got corrected during the break; it is still teaching the baby has gill pouches. notice for example, gill pouches. gill slits on the embryo. they're teaching this in textbooks all over the world. it's only been proven wrong since 1875. get it out of the book! tear the page out. i mean, it's a no-brainer. tear out the page. it's not true.
here's a junior high textbook telling them an embryo has gill slits. this one says, "similarly, humans and fish embryos resemble each other because humans and fish share a common ancestor. these similarities provide evidence that these 3 animals evolved from a common ancestor." tiny gill slits; gill slits on the human embryo. gills of fish; tiny gill pouches, used in college textbooks. here's a 2004 textbook saying, "evidence of evolution is seen in development of embryos." you can't get a high score on sat or act college tests unless you lie and say the baby has gill pouches. it's found on every single test we could find. if you don't believe in evolution, you won't score high to get into college. or at least you'd have to give the evolution answer.
why would they keep this in the textbooks 130 years after it has been proven wrong? there's only 1 answer i can come up with. i'll tell you in a minute. this one shows a 5-6 week embryo, and it says, "by 7 months, the fetus looks from the outside like a tiny normal baby, but it's not." it's not a baby at 7 months? hello? that's is lie number 12. it's a human at conception; 34% of babies born at 5-1/2 months will survive. one lady had surgery on her baby before it was born. they carefully cut the mother open, cut the uterus open, and the baby is holding the doctor's finger at 5 months along. let's see, the angel of the lord said, "behold, thou art with fetus."
no, i believe he said, you're with child, didn't he? yeah, it's a child before it's born. scott peterson is accused of murdering his wife and unborn child. now paula zahn, you hypocrite. don't you think it's ok to have an abortion and yet you call it an unborn child? scott peterson is found guilty of murdering his wife and ….. son. that's because in california you have to have a double homicide to get the death penalty. so in that case they wanted it to be a son or a child. but the rest of the time they don't, so that if you want to have an abortion, it's okay. now it's not a child, it's just a fetus. well, let's get consistent here folks, ok? which is it? more about embryology on this one, but why do they keep this in the textbooks? it's very simple.
that's the only way to justify abortion. they want you to think it's not human yet. somebody wants to reduce the population of this planet. and abortion has already done 20% of the entire world's population has been killed by abortion. one billion people. let's see, hitler killed 6 million, stalin about 100 million, abortions 1,000 million. that's going to work. we'll cover more on that on video 5. ana rosa had her arm chopped off in a botched abortion. she was born anyway. they thought they killed her. everybody says, "oh, that's terrible." what if they would have cut her head off instead? we never would have heard about ana rosa. now, i live in pensacola, florida. you might have heard of my town.
we've had 2 doctors that were doing abortions that were shot and killed. several clinics have been blown up or burned down. i did not shoot any doctors, and i did not blow up any clinics, ok? and i don't think jesus would do it that way. he grew up under roman control. he didn't go around blowing up tanks and burning down bridges. but when the first doctor got shot, i was preaching in fort lauderdale. the next day, i flew home, and right in front of me on the airplane were 2 ladies. i'm sorry, 2 women from noww, the national organization for wild women. and they were flying up to pensacola, going to have a big rally and march around town, you know?
as we got off the airplane, i noticed on their shirt, it 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, "a woman ought to have the right to choose." i said, "choose what?" she said, "choose to have an abortion. it's her body." i said, "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." um-hmm. when you consider half of them are male. think about it; it's not her body. um-hmm. i said, "by the way, ma'am, i'm kind of curious about this. i have 3 kids. i delivered one of my kids at home. i used to raise hamsters.
i taught biology and anatomy. i'm kind of familiar with this process." i said, "why does the woman's right to choice stop at birth? why don't we let the mother choose to kill them after it's born? it would be a lot safer and simpler. hey, why don't we extend abortion rights up until the kid is 2 years old?" i know a lot of mothers with a 2-year-old that have thought about it a time or two. i won't ask you to raise your hand, but i know you're out there. oh, i've got it. let's extend abortion rights up until the kid is 18. whew, i bet they'd behave a lot better. "son, one more time, and i'm going to abort you." (laughter) "hey teacher, where's johnny today?" "oh, he didn't do his homework yesterday, so his mommy aborted him."
hey, grades would skyrocket, wouldn't they? by the way, peter singer is pushing for abortion after the baby is born. he's trying to get legislation passed so you can kill the baby up to 28 days after it's born and still call it an abortion. have you ever noticed the news media calls them "pro-choice" and they call guys like me "anti-abortion?" they do that "anti-abortion" because it's a negative-sounding term. "pro-choice" is such a positive-sounding term. how about let's call me "pro-life" and call them "pro-death," and we both get a positive-sounding term? that's why i refuse to take the paper. i just can't stand their liberal slant on everything.
we get a call once in a while, "hey, you want to take the pensacola news journal?" i say, "no, ma'am, we don't have a parakeet." click. (laughter) that's what i tell them. see, the media is going to ignore the wishes of the majority, and they're going to push their liberal agenda. we'll cover more on that in part 5. remember when the kids got shot in columbine, colorado? right away, they jumped on the gun control issue. you know, if kids keep getting shot in our schools, maybe it's time to consider some other issues like: should we have public schools? or maybe: should we teach them evolution? that's what did the columbine shooting. those kids were real strong believers in evolution. they made a videotape before the shooting. one of the boys said, "he doesn't deserve the jaw evolution gave him. look for his jaw.
it won't be on his body." they were strong believers in evolution. they did the shooting on hitler's birthday, on purpose. they shot isaiah shoels just because he was black. eric's t-shirt said "natural selection". and then rosie o'donnell said, "see, we need more gun control." (sigh) rosie, rosie, rosie. blaming guns for columbine is like blaming spoons for rosie o'donnell being fat. it's not the spoon's fault. it's not the gun's fault. maybe certain criminals ought to be publicly executed. maybe it's time to think that one through one more time. maybe all law-abiding citizens should be required to carry guns to protect themselves. um-hmm. suppose every teacher in the public school was required to be armed. just suppose.
how far down the hallway would those kids have gotten? somebody sent me this button: "proudly unarmed" would you wear this button? what does this say to a criminal? it says: "rob me!!" (laughter) isn't that exactly what it says? of course. the founding fathers gave us the 2nd amendment so we could keep and bear arms. and it wasn't so that we could go duck-hunting. the purpose of the 2nd amendment was so we could defend ourselves if the government goes bad. last ditch defense against an evil government is an armed citizenry. did you ever notice that a lot of animals that eat grass have horns? did you know, you don’t need horns to eat grass?
the purpose of the horns is to explain to the lion, "stay off my back. i just want to eat the grass. leave me alone." and i think everybody ought to be armed, not so we can hurt anybody. but just so we can explain to people, "leave me alone. don't take my stuff. don't break into my house. don't steal my car. don't come hurt my family. ok? thank you." (laughter) i probably waited too long. i didn't start my kids shooting until they were about 3. i probably should have started at about 2, you know? here's the logic they use to justify abortion. they're going to say, "well, it's not human." oh, brother. you're either dumb or you're lying. it's human at conception. they're going to say, "well, it's not viable. it can't live on its own." you're not viable yourself stark naked on the north pole, you know? it can't live on its own?
i know kids that are 25 who still come borrow money from dad! (laughter) "hey dad, can i borrow some money?" "you ought to be able to live on your own by now, son." they're going to say, "the child may be unwanted." there are kids that are already born that are unwanted. my parents moved 4 times when i was growing up, but i found them every time. (laughter) by the way, there are probably 5 people in this room that have had an abortion. now, you listen carefully. god loves you. he can forgive you. it's not the unpardonable sin. god can use you in a powerful way. but don't you go through life justifying it. don't say, "it was okay." no, it wasn't okay. it was murder.
so confess it, forsake it, get right with god, and go serve god with your life. half the bible was written by murderers, okay? you're in good company. they're going to say, "well, the child may be unwanted." a lot of people are unwanted. year after year, the number of people waiting to adopt is about equal to the number of abortions. the babies are not unwanted. they're going to say, "well, the child may be a financial burden." show me a kid that's not. anybody got a kid that's not a financial burden? they're going to say, "it may be from rape or incest." well, then you kill the rapist, not the baby. execute the rapist and adopt out the baby. it's not that complicated. hey, did you know, it's illegal to shoot deer at night with spotlights in just about every state.
is it illegal in tennessee to shoot deer at night with spotlights? you've got to give them a sporting chance, right? let's give the baby a sporting chance. pass a law in tennessee that says if a lady goes to have an abortion, the nurse will have a jar of marbles. and we're going to have a lottery. 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. and let's really have a choice. you know, if he's not alive, why is he growing? if he's not a human being, what kind of being is he anyway, huh? she says, "honk, if you're pro-choice." it's easy for her to be pro-choice. she's already been born. i don’t know if you ever thought about this, but did you know everybody
that ever voted for abortion has already been born? think that one through. they say, "well, abortion is legal." that doesn’t make it right. in 1936, the german supreme court declared that jews in germany - are not persons. that opened the way to allow hitler to kill the jews. at least six million jews were killed! i have read lots of books about hitler. i've been to germany a couple of times. hitler said, "i have the right to exterminate an inferior race that breed like the vermin." hitler thought the jews were an inferior species. he said, "the germans are the superior race that deserve to rule the world." hitler was killing the jews to make more living space for the germans.
he sought to make the practices of germany conform to the theory of evolution. hitler said, "if you want these criminals, i'll send them to you on luxury ships." you know, in 1938, the jews could have been saved. but america refused to take them. every country but sweden refused to take the jews. hitler's book and his mind were captivated by evolutionary thinking probably since he was a boy. evolutionary ideas lie at the basis of all that is worst in his book, "mein kampf". hitler thought it was the duty of the strong to trample the weak. in his book, hitler said, "nature does not desire the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she desire the blending of a higher with a lower race." who's the higher race, adolph?
he kept talking about the mingling of aryan blood all through his book. he talked about aryan races, lower peoples. well, i found hitler's hit list. hitler thought that blond-haired, blue-eyed norwegians were close to pure aryan. did you get all that? the blond-haired, blue-eyed norwegian "yah, sure, you betcha" . he thought the germans are mostly aryan. the mediterraneans are slightly arian. the slavics are half-arian, and half-ape. orientals are slightly ape. black africans are mostly ape. and jews are close to pure ape. hitler killed the jews to speed up the evolution process. let's eliminate the inferiors. anybody know where the olympics were held in 1936? berlin.
anybody know who won the most gold medals? jesse owens, a black american athlete. hitler was so angry, he said it's not fair to make my men race against this animal. hitler said, "i regard christianity as the most fatal seductive lie that ever existed." well, that's because he thought biological evolution would be a weapon against religion because the bible teaches all nations are of one blood. and if you think you are superior to somebody because of the color of your skin: 1. you're wrong. 2. you're stupid. 3. you're not right with god. we cover more on the races, and there's no such thing as races, it's just skin colors, on video #7. i stood in the courtroom in nuremberg where they held the trial years ago.
those guys on trial said, "we did nothing illegal. we were just obeying orders." yeah, and they were found guilty anyway, weren't they? see, there's a higher law than germany's law. it's called god's law. now, the supreme court in america in 1973 said, "the word 'person' does not include the unborn." that's the decision that opened the way now for 45 million babies to be killed in america. that is 1,000 million, i.e. a billion worldwide. on september 11, 2001, 3000 americans were killed by terrorists. we spent billions of dollars trying to hunt them down and kill them, right? you know what else happened september 11, 2001?
forty-five hundred americans were killed by abortionists; 50% more deaths, but nobody said a word. the next day, it happened again. we've had a september 11 tragedy every day ever since. have we gone nuts? margaret sanger started a group called "planned parenthood" to eliminate the "inferior species". she wanted to wipe out the blacks, the jews, and the orientals. she thought they were human weeds. we could spend all day on margaret sanger. but just like hitler said, "the jews are a parasite in the body of nations," margaret sanger said, "the unborn child is a parasite in the woman's body." no, it's a child. it's a baby. we could spend all day on margaret sanger.
we're not going to take time for that now. this is a planned parenthood document from 1952. they said, "your questions answered about birth control." what is birth control? is it an abortion? they said, "oh, definitely not. an abortion requires an operation. it kills the life of a baby after it has begun." well, you bunch of hypocrites at planned parenthood! now, they're the biggest funder of abortions in the country. proverbs 6:16-17 "these six things doth the lord hate: hands that shed innocent blood." god hates this. deuteronomy 27:25 "cursed be ye that taketh reward to slay an innocent person, and all the people shall say amen." the textbooks are going to tell you kids that you have an appendix that is vestigial.
you don't need it anymore. that's a lie. you need your appendix. the appendix is actually a part of your immune system. lie number 13. here's an article on the web from university of chicago, "ask a scientist." nancy writes in and says, "what is the function of the appendix in a human before it is taken out through surgery?" this lady writes back and says, "the appendix has no known function." she's way behind the times on that one. she goes on to say, "it is believed that the appendix will gradually disappear in human beings as our diet do not includes cellulose no more." (sic) "our diet do not includes cellulose no more"? the university of chicago. wow, good place to get an education. not in english apparently.
in the first place, this is not true. the appendix is part of your immune system. you need your appendix. the appendix activates killer b cells like your thyroid activates killer t cells. it's true you can live without your appendix. that's true. you could live without both your legs, and both your arms, and both your eyes. and both your ears also. it doesn't prove you don't need them. if you take your appendix out, you've got a much bigger chance of getting all sorts of diseases. this textbook says the whale has a vestigial pelvis. "many organisms retain traces of their evolutionary history. for example, the whale retains pelvic and leg bones as useless vestiges."
the "national center for science education" teaches, "bossie the cow evolved to blow-hole the whale." the cow evolved to the whale. and the evidence is the pelvis. "whales have a vestigial pelvis and leg bone that serve no purpose. they have hind limb bones that have no function." "just imagine whales walking around. it's true." well, here are the bones they're talking about, right there. just imagine the whale walking around. i have tried and tried to imagine, and i just can't do it. almost every type of whale has these bones right there in the abdomen. they are not attached to the spine. that's correct. this textbook says, "the whale's pelvis is located far from the vertebra and has no apparent function.
the whale's pelvis is evidence of its evolution from four-legged land-dwelling mammals." this is lie number 14. those little bones are anchor points that special muscles attach to that allow the whales to reproduce. whales are kind of big, you know, and without those special muscles and those special bones, they can't get more baby whales. so either these guys are ignorant about their whale anatomy or they're lying to your kids trying to spread their theory. but it's not true that those are vestigial. there are no vestigial organs. and if there were, think about it. that would be the opposite of evolution. that's losing, not gaining. how's that going to help? you lose everything - until you have it all? we could spend 2 days on whale evolution.
every one of them, including ambulocetus and pakicetus have all been proven baloney. they can't be intermediate species for whales. the authors were certain the feet were enormous even though nothing was found. basilosaurus could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales. pakicetus was made from 1 small piece of jaw, a small piece of a skull, and a few teeth. you find a little bit of jaw, a little bit of skull, a couple of teeth, and you know that it's half-whale, half-something on land? that's kind of a stretch, don’t you think? we'll cover more on that later, but there's all kinds of stuff on our website about this. i've got in my museum, a 15-1/2 foot (5 meters) python snake skin.
if you look at the south end of that snakeskin, it's got a couple of claws attached to a little 2-inch bone going up inside the snake's body. we've got it in our museum. the textbook says, "see, boys and girls? this is a vestigial structure. the boa and the python have these little tiny claws. do whales or snakes have back legs? you can see that they don't. yet, both animals have vestigial hip bones and leg bones where legs may once have existed." this is a lie. this textbook says, "they have reduced hind legs, rudimentary hind legs of a python snake." you've got to be kidding. those little claws are used in mating. okay? the snake doesn't have any arms, and he can't talk and say, "uh, scoot over, honey." okay?
this has nothing whatsoever to do with walking on land. it has to do with getting baby snakes. so once again, somebody is real dumb about their snake anatomy or they're lying to your kid trying to spread their theory. this textbook shows the coccyx, the human tailbone, in a "discover" magazine. and it says, "that's all that's left of the tail that most mammals still use. humans have a tailbone that is of no apparent use." i was in a debate in huntsville, alabama, against the president of the north alabama atheist association, and he got up in front of god and everybody and said, "folks, i've 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 9 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 think the tailbone is vestigial, i, kent hovind, will pay to have yours removed. bend over." (laughter) "critical thinking", this book says, 2005 edition. "at the end of your backbone is a coccyx, a few small bones that are fused together. could the human coccyx be a vestigial structure or is it the start of a newly evolving structure?" that's thinking critically? they give the kids 2 answers, 2 options, both of which are wrong.
there's a third option, you know. maybe it's fine just like it is. notice they don't give that as an option, do they? maybe it was designed to support your colon and support your lower back for posture when you sit. and for 5 or 6 other things you can read about in "gray's anatomy" book. they say, "aren't babies born with tails once in a while?" no. "well, that baby's got a tail right there." no, he doesn’t. it's not a tail. it's just fatty tissue. there is no bone, no muscle, no cartilage. it's not even lined up with the spine. it has to do with the way the baby develops inside the mother. there's fat around the nervous system to protect it until the bone grows around it. generally, the fat is reabsorbed into the system as the baby grows and develops bone.
but in extremely rare occasions, the fat is excluded outside the body like a big wart. so what you do, you cut it off, sew it up, put a diaper on the kid, and send him home. it's just like a wart, that's all it is. cut it off. it's not a tail. this one says, "the coccyx 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, that humans used to have a tail but he lost it because he didn't need it. i thought, "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?
now wouldn't that be nice to be able to grab that door and walk right in there? you could drive down the highway and hold that can of coke and tune the radio knob all at the same time. (laughter) lost it because we didn't need it! that's lie number 15. everything used as evidence for evolution has been proven wrong. if real evidence exists, i'd like to see it. we'll pay a quarter of a million dollars for real proof for evolution. but don't lie to me. i think you ought to demand that your school board cut out pages with lies on them. don't put up with that stuff. i was speaking at the university of west florida, and one biology teacher said, "hovind, i don't think we should deface textbooks." i said, "what do you mean?" he said, "well, tonight, you said we should cut out the pages with this stuff on it.
we shouldn't deface the textbooks." i said, "well, sir, suppose you were teaching math and you found a book that said 2 plus 2 equals 5. what would you tell your students to do?" he said, "i would tell them to mark out the wrong answer and write in the right answer." "ohhh, you would deface a textbook?" i said, "now, sir, you teach biology, don't you?" he said, "yes, i do." i said, "well, suppose you found one of your textbooks that taught the embryo has gill slits, or the snake has a vestigial pelvis, or all of the other stuff i covered tonight. are you going to tell your kids to tear that page out?" he said, "oh, no, no." i said, "would you tell them to mark it out and then write something in the column that it's not correct?" he said, "no, no, no." i said, "would you at least put a warning sticker in the front cover
that said, 'hey kids, the information on page 85 is wrong?' would you at least warn them?" he said, "oh no, no." i said, "you would correct a math book, but you won't correct a biology book?" i said, "you, sir, are a hypocrite, and the folks in this county need to help you get a different job picking peaches or changing tires. but you've got no business taking our tax dollars to lie to these kids in your class. we're paying for this school. why don't you be respectful and resign or quit lying to the kids?" he said, "hovind, you don't have much tact." oh, i made full contact with that guy, that's for sure. evolution is unproved and unproveable. they believe it because the only alternative is special creation. they just don't want to believe this. they don't want to believe in creation. and they're willing to believe a lie rather than believe the truth, so they can support their wicked lifestyles.
psalm 94 says, "he that formed the eye, shall he not see?" god formed the eye. eyeballs are incredibly complicated. charles darwin said, "to suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, i fear to confess, absurd." but then he goes on for 3 or 4 pages and says how he thinks it happened anyway. your eyeball is amazing. at the back of your eye, there are 137 million light-sensitive cells in 1 square inch. it's called your retina, and all of them are wired straight to the brain. how would you like to hook up 137 million electrical connections in 1 square inch? my heavenly father did. he's pretty smart, isn't he? now, i debated a particular atheist one time, and he said, "hovind, the eye is an example
for evolution because it's poorly designed." i said, "what on earth are you talking about?" he said, "well, the light comes into your eye and then it goes through blood vessels in front of the retina." he said, "that's wired backwards." he said, "the octopus has a much better eye because their blood vessels are behind the retina." i said, "sir, let me just explain something to you, ok?" i said, "we live in the air." now air is a pretty poor insulator for uv light. so your body is designed with the blood vessels in front of the retina. that's your body's last defense against ultraviolet light. now, an octopus lives in the water. water blocks uv light. so they don't need their blood vessels in front.
see, we're designed for living in air. and they're designed for living in water. now if you want to swap eyes with an octopus, you just go ahead, sir, but you're going to be blind in a few days. because they don't the have the blood vessels in front to block the uv light. what a dumb evidence for evolution. what they're trying to say is "well, god wouldn't do it this way, so it must have evolved." well, that's a silly argument for evolution. maybe you just don't understand why it was designed that way. man's understanding of the human body is like putting a 5-year-old kid under the hood of your car and saying, "hey, kid, take out whatever this thing doesn't need." they don't know what any of it does.
you could take it all out, right? you know, your eyeball is amazing. it would take a minimum of 100 years of cray computer time to simulate what takes place in your eye many times every second. eyeballs are amazing. but this textbook 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 did? this textbook shows the kids a bird eye and a reptile eye. and it says right up here, "boys and girls, you can better understand how the eye might have evolved if you picture a series of changes. you have to imagine how it happened. just image the eye changing. that's not science. imagining how it happened. where's the evidence? see, evolution only takes place in the imagination. it never takes place in reality.
they're lying to you. lie number 16. psalms 94:9 "...he that formed the eye, shall he not see?" science deals with things that we can observe and study and test. you don't observe anything about evolution. if you have something that's designed like an eyeball, it demands a designer. a painting is proof there was a painter even if you never see the guy. a building is proof there was a builder, and a watch is proof there was a watchmaker. and creation is proof there was a creator. see, design simply demands a designer. period. romans 1:20-22 "the invisible things that came from the creation of the world are clearly seen.
they are without excuse," the bible says. there is no excuse. the psalmist said, psalm 8:3-4 "when i consider the heavens…" you know, god knows that the study of real science will draw us to him. satan knows that too. so satan has worked really hard in the field of science to make sure it pushes people away from god. and we need some good godly science teachers to get involved in the school system and turn this thing around. and by the way, we can prove the existence of god by the impossibility of the contrary. it's impossible that there not be a designer. it's just not possible. there had to be a designer. i like to show evolutionists this picture of mount rushmore. i say, "guys, here we have, as far as i know, the world's largest rock group." (laughter)
"do you know of a bigger 'rock group'? i'd like to see it, okay?" i'll say, "do you think that george washington's face could have appeared on this rock by chance?" they say, "no, it was designed by a guy named borglum. it took him a long time to build it." ok, very good. now, let me ask you another question. you say there is no way this face could appear on the rock by chance. you don't think wind could have done that…abrasion…exfoliation….thermal expansion of the rock… nothing? "nope, nope, it happened by design." they reply. ok, now let me ask you this question. you think george washington himself - with 50 trillion cells in his body and all of his complex systems - happened by chance? they'll say, "yeah." now wait, wait, wait.
you don't think a simple image of his face could appear on a rock by chance. but you do think his whole complex anatomy could happen by chance? are you dumb in any other area or is that the only one? you know? then, they tell kids that plants are adapted to their environment. adapted? yes, boys and girls, fish gills are an adaptation to living in water. oh well, how did they live before they adapted the gills, hmm? well, you see, mr. hovind, for millions of years, they all died, none of them lived until they adapted the gills. ohhh, i see. why don’t they say it's a design feature? see, they avoid using the word "designed" because then some kid's going to say, "who's the designer?"
the textbook says: adaptations for life on land. legs support the body's weight as well as allow for movement from place to place. well, that's true. that doesn't prove they adapted by themselves though. lungs. oh boy, the delicate structure of a fish's gills depends on water for support. on land, lungs carry out gas exchange. that's true. that's not a proof one changed into the other, though. they just make this mental imaginary connection in the kids' minds. i've got a casio databank watch. it holds 300 phone numbers. it's a calculator, stopwatch, an alarm clock, and a countdown timer. it does not tell time.
i have to look at it. but it's a pretty amazing machine. seventy bucks at walmart. i was in japan a couple of years ago, but i did not see the guy who makes the casio databank watch. i never saw him. do i have to see the guy who made it to believe he exists? hmmm. is it logical for me to stand here in tennessee and say, "i believe there's a watch designer in japan that made this thing." is that logical? even if i have never seen him? sure. would it be illogical for me to say, "i've never seen him so i don't believe he exists." that would be totally dumb, wouldn't it? and you don't have to see the creator to believe he exists, ok? evolutionists argue against design, using arguments that they designed. hmmm…think about that one.
here's a great book talking about the complexity of living things at a micro-scale. we sell the book at our website. michael behe wrote this in his book, "darwin's black box". he spends a whole chapter describing the hair on a bacteria. that hair is so complicated. it’s attached to a little tiny motor. the motor is so tiny that 8 million of them would fit in the cross-section of a human hair, but the motor turns at 100,000 rpms (revolutions per minute)! let's see you build a motor like that. pretty amazing. and as things get smaller, the world they live in feels more sticky to them, the viscosity of the fluid seems greater. so, a bacteria swimming through water is about like a person swimming through peanut butter. and that little motor is so powerful and turns so fast, that bacteria can swim
about like a person going 60 miles an hour through peanut butter. we've got a little model of it in our museum if you want to come down and see how they work. the textbook says, "humans probably evolved from bacteria more than 4 billion years ago." what? if they can swim through peanut butter at 60 miles an hour, we should sign them up for the olympics. we evolved from them? huh…we're getting worse, not better. that's lie number 17. nothing this small and complex could have happened by chance. this is a great book that we sell in our bookstore, "exploding the big bang", just simple illustrations. could a box evolve? could an ink pen evolve? could a paper clip evolve? it just goes through a bunch of simple things and shows it just can't happen.
then, they talk about the origin of life. yes, boys and girls, how living things started from non-living matter. this is pure baloney how they teach this in the books. we're going to cover that after a quick break. we'll cover a few more lies in the textbooks and then tell you what you can do about it. there are some practical steps to fix the problem right after the break. end of seminar 4b - dr. kent hovind - www.drdino.com start of seminar 4c - dr. kent hovind - in english in the last 2 sessions, we've covered over 15 lies found in typical modern textbooks. i taught high school science for 15 years. and i'm not against science. i'm not against schools. i'm also not against teachers, but i'm against lies. just don't lie to the kids.
the bible says in the book of proverbs 19:27 "cease, my son, to hear the instruction that causeth thee to err from the words of knowledge." don't listen to things that are simply not true. get the lies out of the books. the bible says (revelation 4:10-11) god created all things, and it says, acts 7:49 "heaven is my throne and earth is my footstool. hath not my hand made all these things?" god made everything. the bible says that god formed the entire world. the bible says (genesis 1:21) "god created great whales and every living thing." now, the textbooks in school are going to teach your kids that every living thing happened by itself. they're not going to teach them god created every living thing, that's for sure.
here's a textbook that says, "the history of life on earth began about 3.5 billion years ago. how this occurred has been and will continue to be a topic for inquiry." let me give you the hovind translation of what they just said. what they just said is: "it's okay to inquire how it evolved. it is not okay to inquire if it evolved." hey, kids, you're allowed to research into how did evolution happen. and if some kid says, "well, maybe it didn't happen at all." "oh, shut up kid, you're out of my class!" the only way you can research it is how did it happen. you cannot even ask the question did it happen. that's not education. that's indoctrination. okay? i'm sick and tired of paying for that stuff.
"nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.", paul davies said. nobody has a clue how life got started from non-living material by itself. there is not even a good theory how it could happen. but the textbooks are going to teach your kids that "it just happened". they just tell them, "hey, it happened." and you can't even consider the option that maybe god made it. here's what happened. back in the 1950s, two researchers, miller and urey, decided to try to figure out how life evolved. so they took a mixture of chemicals and ran them through these tubes
and they tried to create life in the laboratory. the experiment has been duplicated many, many times and always been a failure. and it always created more problems for the evolutionists. this textbook says, "although he never did prove how life originated, he did add evidence to the theory that life could have started by itself." that is a lie. all they did was create problems for the idea that life could have started by itself. this one says, "swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals. progress from a complex chemical soup to a living organism is very slow." boy, it sure is. it doesn't even happen. that's how slow it is.
there are several different articles that say life came from clay. yep, got some clay together and, poof, it came alive on the bottom of the ocean. they did not address the origin of life in darwin's book. and it's never been figured out since how life could have started. what miller and urey did was they took these 4 chemicals and put them in these glass tubes. and they made them circulate around and tried to create life in the laboratory. this textbook 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."
i guess so. if you give it billions of years, somehow it looks more reasonable, you know? this one says, "the first living cells emerged between 4 billion and 3.8 billion years ago. there is no record of the event." but you'd better believe it, and you're going to be tested on it. "the first self-replicating systems must have emerged in this organic soup." so great-great-great-great-grandpa was soup. this is one of the lies in the textbooks you kids have to face. lie number 18. nobody has a clue how life could have gotten started by non-living chemicals. even haeckel confessed (he's the guy we talked about in the last session that made up the idea that the embryo has gill slits, so that they can justify abortion).
haeckel claimed that spontaneous generation must be true. not because it had been proven in the laboratory. but because otherwise it would be necessary to believe in a creator. well, ernst, i'm sorry, but that's just the way it goes. there's a creator - whether you like it or not. so have they really produced life in the laboratory? oh, they haven't even come close. here's what they did. they took 4 gases: they took methane, ammonia, water vapor and hydrogen. they ran them through these tubes, and ran it through a spark chamber which is supposed to simulate lightning, boom!
and they said, "see, we're going to put them together and make life in the laboratory." at the bottom of the flask, they got this red goo, and they kept draining the goo off. because if it went through the spark again, that would destroy it. so they had to make the goo, but then to save it from the next spark. they said in the textbook here, "it was rich in amino acids," this red goo was. well, that's simply a lie. they didn't come close to making life. the problem is, they had a reducing atmosphere. in other words, he excluded oxygen. you can look at his 4 gases. there's no oxygen in there. he knew if he had oxygen in there, it would oxidize whatever chemicals tried to combine.
you know, you cut a banana open, lay it on the table, it turns brown. it oxidizes. if you don't paint your car, the metal quickly oxidizes. it rusts. well, living cells will oxidize quickly in the presence of oxygen, so he didn't put any oxygen in there. that creates a serious problem. because if you have oxygen, you cannot get life to come from non-living chemicals. the problem is, ozone is made from oxygen. and ozone blocks uv light. and uv light destroys ammonia. and ammonia is one of the 4 gases he's using. so you cannot get life to evolve with oxygen, and you cannot get life to evolve without oxygen. because if you don't have oxygen, you don't have ozone and now your ammonia gets destroyed.
it's just not going to work either way. and the earth has always had oxygen, even more than today. this guy said, "what evidence is there for a primitive methane-ammonia atmosphere on earth? the answer is there is no evidence for it but much against it." "in general, we find no evidence in the sedimentary distribution of carbon, sulfur, uranium, etc., of an oxygen-free atmosphere ever existing on the earth." if somebody tells you the early earth had a "reducing atmosphere", you tell them kent hovind said they're confused or they're deliberately lying, because it's not true. the earth has always had oxygen. this article says, "it's suggested from the earliest dated rocks that 3.7 billion years ago, earth had an oxygenic atmosphere."
they have always known the earth had oxygen, even more than we have today. we cover that in seminar part 2 how the early earth probably had even more oxygen. it made them live longer. this textbook says, "there was no oxygen on the earth." that is a lie. and then it says, "the rocks absorbed it." (laughter) hello? how can they absorb it if it wasn't there? well, think about it. the second problem they had with the miller experiment, they filtered out the product. that is not realistic for nature. they saved the red goo from getting sparked the second time, because that would have destroyed it. what they actually made in this experiment was 85% tar and 13% carboxylic acid.
now, both of those are poisonous to life. if you make a mixture that's 98% poisonous to the other 2%, i don't think it's logical to say you've succeeded in creating anything that's going to help make life. there are other problems too. he made mostly only two amino acids. there are 20 different ones required to make life; 20 different amino acids. now, these amino acids are kind of like letters of the alphabet. you have to have 26 letters in the english alphabet to make all the words that we have. well, you have to have 20 different amino acids to make all the proteins that your body has. with those 20 different amino acids, your body can build lots of different kinds of proteins. this is kind of like you can make a lot of different words with the same 26 letters.
what he actually made was like 2 of the letters of the alphabet by combining these gases. this creates a real problem since half of them were left-handed and half of them were right-handed. what he actually made was simple amino acids, only 2 types, and half of them were backwards. i mean, if i drop letters of the alphabet, there's a 50/50 chance some of them are going to land upside-down. they don't do any good. you have to have them all facing the right way. the smallest proteins we know of have about 70-100 amino acids; all of them facing the right way. this greatly compounds the problem, ok? dna and rna are all right-handed. all other proteins are left-handed. "this is a very puzzling fact that all proteins that have been investigated from animals, plants, and higher organisms and from simple organisms, bacteria, molds,
and even viruses are made of left-handed amino acids." they're all that way. so he's really got a problem since half of his letters were backwards. and there are hundreds of amino acids required to combine in just the right way to make a protein. and they unbond in water faster than they bond, and they claim this all happened in the oceans? well, the oceans are completely full of water all the way to the bottom. also brownian motion is going to drive them apart. it's not going to put them together. one of the lies in the textbooks is that - they made life in the laboratory. all they've done, in every experiment, has made the problem worse for the evolutionists. these spontaneous generations do not occur spontaneously in water.
life is not going to get started in that way. there is a whole lot more in the book icons of evolution if you want a lot more on the subject to go down deep. but they got this weird idea in their head that all they have to do is get all the right chemicals together and add energy, and it will make life. ok, well, let's do an experiment. let's put a frog in a blender and turn it on. in a matter of moments, you will have frog-nog…. (laughter) and you will have all of the chemicals required to make one frog in the blender, right? now, we're going to add energy. you can turn it on puree for 30 minutes. you can nuke it, microwave it, zap it with jumper cables.
i don't care what you do, drop a hand grenade in there, add all the energy you want. how long will it take to reassemble the frog? it will never happen. see, just getting the chemicals together isn't the problem. you go to the mortuary. you've got a dead body laying there, you've got all the chemicals required for life right there in one spot. bring it back to life. life is something different. i don't think science has ever defined that clearly. but they talk about how we all came from this early life form. once this first life form got started, the single cell, then it evolved into everything else. like this textbook shows the kid that a bacteria slowly evolved to a human.
these trees of life are absolute propaganda. there is no evidence for any of these. even mary leakey said, "those trees of life with the branches of our ancestors, that's a lot of nonsense." stephen gould said, "the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks are not the evidence of fossils." that's for sure. there is no evidence that any animal is related to any other kind of animal. but 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. if it's alive, it's complicated. we'll cover more on that in a minute. and then it says, "no traces of those events remain." what they do is they tell the kids, "okay kids,
the mammals, the birds, and the crocodiles have a common ancestor." they draw these trees in the books, and they look so pretty. and the kid goes, "wow, they've got proof. i saw it in my book." no, they've got a picture in your book. everything inside that circle is pure religious speculation. they think it happened, they hope it happened, but there is zero evidence for anything inside that circle. it's one of the lies you're going to have to face in your textbook. the bible says, "if you offend one of these little ones, you'd be better off with a millstone about your neck" and go swimming. these folks teaching evolution are in serious trouble when they stand before god.
then, they tell them we come from a simple primitive unicellular organism. look, just because it's smaller, it doesn't mean it's simpler. a paramecium is more complicated than a space shuttle. and you can put thousands of those into 1 drop of water. smaller is not simpler. that's one of the lies in the textbooks. i'll show you. here's a microchip inside a paper clip. pretty small. not simple. this microchip is being held in the mouth of an ant. and that little microchip can process every letter of the bible 200 times per second. smaller is not simpler. i'll show you. let's compare the brain of a honeybee to nasa's cray computer, at one time the world's fastest computer.
i think they've got a faster one now. the brain of a honeybee is pretty small, the cray computer is huge. we would all agree there's a size difference, right? ok? now, the cray computer can do 6 billion calculations per second. it was estimated that the honeybee's brain is doing about a trillion calculations per second. that is a thousand billion. so that little honeybee brain is about 133 times faster than a cray computer. the cray uses many megawatts. it's power-hungry. the honeybee uses 10 microwatts. did you know honeybees not only make honey, they fly on honey? that's their energy source. and a honeybee can fly a million miles on 1 gallon of honey. how would you like a machine that gets a million miles per gallon?
especially at today's price of gas, right? fill up once, and you're done for the rest of your life. the cray cost 48 million dollars. the honeybee's brain is pretty cheap. you splat them on your windshield all the time, right? many people scramble when the cray breaks down. nobody heals the honeybee, it si a self-healing computer. steve, you work on computers, how'd you like one of those? something crashes, bzzz, reconfigures itself, fixes it all up, no problem. the cray will weigh 2300 pounds. the honeybee's brain doesn't weigh too much. so what should we conclude? let's see, the supercomputer is huge.
it is slow. it is very inefficient. it is power-hungry, and it had to be designed. we all know that, right? but yet, they turn around and look at the honeybee and say, "well, that happened by chance." uh… and the brain of a human is a whole more complex than a honeybee, for heaven's sake. your brain can hold more information than the entire british library. the human brain is phenomenal! you have more computational power in bits per second than the entire national telephone system. one brain surgeon estimated that there are more connections in just one person's brain than the entire electrical grid system of the united states. how many wires have been connected together in the united states? with every computer and inside every machine and inside every building, like zillions of them?
one brain has more than that. one professor told me that he believed in evolution, and i said, "well, sir, do you believe your brain is nothing but 3 pounds of chemicals that got together by chance?" he said, "yeah." i said, "then how can you trust your thoughts and the conclusions you come to?" (laughter) maybe you've got a chemical in there backwards! he did, by the way, several actually. then they tell the kids, "well, dna is pretty tiny, but that proves evolution." that's what this textbook says. "we have evidence of evolution from molecular biology. darwin speculated all forms of life are related. this speculation has been verified." they are lying to your kids. nothing about dna has helped with the evolution theory at all. dna, which stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, is the most complex molecule in the universe.
the dna is an unbelievably complicated molecule; that little dna molecule. the average person has 50 trillion cells in their body with 46 of those little molecules in each cell. 46 chromosome strands in each cell of your body. if you extracted all of it, it would only fill about 2 tablespoons. but if you took those dna strands and unwound them, stretched them out, tied them together, one person's dna would reach from earth to the moon and back over a half-million times! those are a lot of round trips to the moon. they say the dna holds more information than all computer programs ever written by man combined. ibm models the newest computers after dna.
the quantity of information is so vast, we have to invent new numbers to measure it. now there are: terabytes, petabytes, exabytes, zettabytes, and yottabytes. all the words uttered by everyone whoever lived would amount to - 5 exabytes. and the dna in your chromosome holds even more information than that. it is so unbelievably complex. if you typed out the code found in your dna, when you got done typing, you'd have enough books to fill grand canyon 78 times. that's the instructions to make - you. i'd say you're pretty special. quite the list of instructions to make you! david said, "i will praise thee for i am fearfully and wonderfully made." and he didn't have a microscope, and he could figure that out.
you know, from conception to birth, the baby adds 15,000 cells per minute to its body. each one is more complicated than a space-shuttle. how would you like to be in charge of the supply end of supplying a factory that is producing 15,000 space-shuttles a minute? and it's your job to make sure they have all the nuts and bolts and screws and everything they need to put that thing together? some of you women are saying, "boy, i did it. that's hard too. sometimes they want pickles in the middle of the night, you know? the husband may ask, "what are you building down there anyway, huh?" the probability of one dna happening by chance has been calculated to be 1 in 10 to the 119,000th power.
that's a big number when you figure the entire visible universe is about 10 to the 28th inches in diameter. dna has not proven anything that would help the evolution theory. it's made the problem much, much, much worse. but, let's just assume that the chromosome number means something and that, you know, it could evolve. ok, well then i did some research on this. i discovered that penicillin has 2 chromosomes. that one had to evolve first. and then slowly over millions of years, they got some more chromosomes because they're complicated, you know, and turned into a fruit-fly. you can see the similarity there. it's only got 8 chromosomes.
and then very slowly, it evolved some more chromosomes and became either a tomato or a house-fly. it is very tough to tell the difference. they're identical twins, you know? and then very slowly over millions of years, it evolved into either a pea or a bee. you can see the similarity there. you know, pea, bee, very similar. it slowly became lettuce and then a carrot, and finally, when we got to 22 chromosomes, triplets. the possum, the redwood tree, and the kidney bean all have 22 chromosomes. the average scientist cannot tell them apart. (laughter) "let's see, which one is which here. okay, let's see, tree, possum, bean, huh." and we have 46 now, folks, and if we can just get 2 more - the next step of human evolution -
we're going to become a tobacco plant. i know some already smell like it. sometimes i'll get on the elevator, and i'll say, "man, you're evolving. you're way ahead of me." and it probably won't happen in my lifetime, but we might get enough chromosomes someday to be either a dog or a chicken. they're twins too, you know. and then way down the road, you know, we're going to become a carp. they've got double the chromosomes we do. and someday, star date 349572, we're going to become a fern. i was at a church one time, and this lady walked up to me afterwards, and she said, "mr. hovind, i'm fern." i shook her hand with that hand right there. hey, how come the evolutionists are always comparing things that fit their theory?
why don't they show us the things that don't fit their theory? for example, let's just say we're going to examine how things evolved based upon how long they live. well, we could arrange animals by how long they live" and we'll find out the hamster evolved first, slowly turned into a cat, and then a canary, and then a dog. and then a chimpanzee and an alligator, elephant, horse, turtle, and human. we made it, folks, we made it. let's arrange the animals based on how long they're pregnant, their gestation period. well, in that case, the possum, only 13 days. how would you like that, ladies? only be pregnant for 13 days, not bad, huh? yeah, i'd have a bunch of kids then. slowly evolved into a hamster, then a rat, then a rabbit, kangaroo, on down the list.
and the elephant, at 640 days. they are the winner. the most evolved creature on earth. oh really? you can see here the cat and the dog are identical twins, you know? maybe we should arrange them based on how much they weigh in their adult form. well, the shrew only weighs 4 grams. slowly, it became a mouse. and very slowly, slowly, over billions of years, it became a whale. well, the whale is the most evolved now. why don't they show us these charts, huh? and why is it that amphibians have 5 times more dna than mammals. and some amoeba have 1000 times more dna? they don't tell us these things because it doesn’t fit their theory.
it's impossible to arrange in any sort of evolutionary series based on just 1 little bit of fact. you'd better find all the facts. you find out that this evolution theory fails miserably. but they tell the kids, "we're going to think critically, boys and girls." they are 20 kinds of amino acids (that's a fact). explain how this fact supports the idea that all life shares a common ancestor." how's a christian kid supposed to answer that for homework for monday? hmmm? don't you see a built-in assumption in this question? that's not learning to think critically. would the kid be allowed, teacher, to explain how this fact that all lifeforms have 20 amino acids. would the kid be allowed to say, "maybe that proves the intelligence of a common designer?"
maybe god gave all the animals the same basic 20 amino acids so that we don't have to just eat each other, you know. i mean, if they're all totally different, wildly different kinds, then we could only eat other humans. but see, god made it this way so the brown cow can eat the green grass and give the white milk and make the yellow butter, and i eat it and get the blond hair. um-hmm. maybe that's why there's all the same basic building blocks. one of the lies they face in the textbooks is this idea that all these similarities prove a common ancestor. well, let's pretend that it does, okay? this textbook says, "humans and orangutans are 96% similar, proving a common ancestor 15 million years ago."
i don't think so. humans and chimps have thousands of differences, thousands of differences. "overall," this guy says, "the genetic difference is only 1.6%." oh, that's what they used to think, but that's a lie. barney maddox was leading genome researcher on this project, and he said, "the genetic difference between human and 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 3 nucleotides is fatal to an animal." he said it's not going to happen. that's when they thought the difference was 1.6%. it's still too big of a gap. later they found out, oh, actually, it's a 95% similarity, which is 5% difference.
and just recently, they said, "oh, no, wow, look at this. it's 7.7% difference." the more we study about this, the worse the problem gets for the evolutionists. actally, it's becoming worse by the day. this result is based on only 1 million dna bases out of 3 billion. they've only analyzed 1/3000th of the human dna code. a very small percent has actually been analyzed. "french and american scientists have mapped chromosome 14 the longest sequence to date. it is the site of more than 60 disease genes. the feat enlisted nearly 100 researchers and marks the fourth of the 24 human chromosomes mapped so far." if somebody tells you they have mapped the entire human genome,
you tell them kent hovind said they are mistaken or they are lying. they've only mapped a small percentage. and it says, "the french national sequencing center said, 'the chromosome is comprised of more than 87 million pairs of dna, all of which have been sequenced so the chromosome's map includes no gaps. this is the longest piece of contiguous dna sequenced.'" eighty-seven million pairs - a fraction of the total 3 billion pairs found in the human genome. they still don't know how much there is in there, and it's already a 7.7% difference. this researcher said, "the human genome is littered with up to 20,000 pseudogenes. that proves evolution." i get this in debates all the time. they'll say, "what about the pseudogenes?"
i'll say, "there's no such thing." they'll say, "well, yeah, there is. there are thousands of pseudogenes (which means a false gene, it doesn't do anything)." oh no, those pseudogenes serve several purposes. number 1, they serve as decoys to draw poisons away from the real ones. number 2, they serve as backup mechanisms. it's like your computer has an automatic backup, you know? if a piece of the memory gets destroyed, another one of those "pseudogenes" jumps right in and takes over. they took out some of the pseudogenes to see what would happen. they said, "well, the mouse doesn't need these things. let's take them out." and there's how they turned out. they were deformed terribly. there's no such thing as a pseudogene.
"the pseudogene may function as a decoy to lure away destructive enzymes." - discover magazine of 2003. we could spend all day on dna sequencing, but you know. it could be we have similar dna to other animals because we have the same designer. you know, similar bridges would have similar blueprints, wouldn't they? similar cars would have similar instructions on how to build them, how to make them. man has a pretty good understanding of how cars work. my daddy started us boys off working on cars when we were, you know, 7 years old. i've had 128 cars, i believe. i rebuilt the motors, the transmissions, the drive shafts, the differentials, the high-speed valves and the muffler bearings.
i have a pretty good understanding of how cars work. but understanding the operation of a car does not explain the origin of the car. big difference, see? let's suppose your son turns 16. all of my kids did a few years ago. your son comes up and says, "hey, dad, i got my license." "let me see that thing, son. let me see your license, come on. wow, son, that's a lousy picture. it is a good likeness though." he says, "hey dad, can i drive the car?" "well, son, your mom and i knew this day was coming. the car is a very complicated machine. did you know there are 3000 bolts required to hold a car together and 1 nut can scatter it all over the highway? we don't think you're ready for the whole car, son. we're going to let you slowly evolve into the car.
this year, we're going to give you 10%, next year maybe just a little more." hey, what good is 10% of a car? that's what you put in a junkyard. how many things have to be right on a car to make it work? like thousands of things, hmm? how many things would have to be wrong to make it stop working? any one of many thousands of things like not having the keys, you know, not having any gas in it.. take your distributor cap off and run a pencil around the inside and put it back on. boy, they'll never find that one. take a spark plug wire off, put a doorbell wire in there, shove it back down, feed the doorbell wire through the firewall and weave it through the fabric of the front seat.
do that when they're going on their honeymoon, you know? get in the car, and wow, let's go, honey. bam! whoa, what was that? there's a thousand things that make your car quit running. there are probably 10,000 ways to stop a car from running. shove a potato in the exhaust pipe, you know, and watch what happens. i don't want to give you any more ideas. (laughter) there are thousands of differences between humans and chimpanzees. but if you think a percentage of similarity proves a relationship, let me show you the research i've been doing. i discovered clouds are 100% water. watermelons are 97%. it's only 3% difference. that proves they're related. jellyfish are 98% - the missing link!
and so are snow-cones, um-hmm, yeah, there we go, we've got us a proof. then, they tell them fossils prove evolution. i say, "guys, you've got to be kidding!" this textbook says, "evidence of evolution from the fossil record…" oh no, don't give me that. that's a lie. there is no fossil record. there's a bunch of bones in the dirt. it's not a record. okay? you're putting your interpretation on those bones you're digging out of the dirt. there is no "fossil record". this textbook says, "evolution is a fact. the fossil record provides some of the strongest evidence that species evolved over time." this is silly. there is no fossil record. you don't look back into time. you look at a bunch of bones you dug out of the dirt, and you put your interpretation on them.
fossils only exist in the present. they don't exist in the past. i mean, you're digging them up, and it's 2009. you can't say, "wow, this fossil is 40 million years old!" you don’t know that. all we do is put our interpretation on the fossils, but the kids are taught, "fossils contribute to our understanding of evolution." kids, keep in mind, dead animals do not reproduce or evolve. darwin said, "if my theory is true, numberless intermediate species ought to have been found in the fossil record." well, i'm sorry. this guy said, "since darwin, many of these links have been found." oh, they are lying to you. no missing links have been found.
even david raup, who believes in evolution, says, "in the years after darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. in general, these have not been found." yet, the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks. oh, you're kidding! fantasy in the textbooks? that's a fancy word for…a lie. and we could spend 2 days on the fossil record. there is no fossil record, and there are gaps all over the place. every place where there ought to be something, they find nothing… no evidence for how the whale evolved or how the birds evolved or how the flowering plants evolved. no evidence whatsoever. if you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know is…it died.
you couldn't prove it had any kids. and you sure couldn't prove it had different kids. and why would you think a bone in the dirt can do something animals today cannot do? -which is to produce something other than their kind! luther sunderland wrote to major evolutionists all over and said, "hey, where is the evidence for evolution?" they wrote back and said, "we don't have it. somebody else has it." he wrote to colin patterson because patterson has access to the largest fossil collection in the world, the british museum of natural history. nobody in the world have more fossils than the british museum's collection. patterson wrote a book about evolution, but he didn't show any missing links.
so sunderland wrote him a letter and said, "excuse me. why didn't you show the missing links in your book? i'd like to see a picture of the missing link." patterson wrote back and 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." there are no missing links. the whole chain is missing. it's not a link they're looking for, folks. even stephen gould said, "the absence of fossil evidence is a nagging problem for evolution." yeah, it sure is. stephen gould died with a set of my videos on his shelf in his library. i hope he watched them.
hopefully, he watched them and got saved. i don't know. so, niles eldredge and stephen gould have kind of "resurrected" the punctuated equilibrium idea that came actually from richard goldschmidt. goldschmidt said, "the first bird hatched from a reptilian egg." they got so frustrated looking for missing links, they couldn't find any, they said, "well, this just proves evolution happened quickly." oh, i see, yep. and this bird that hatched from the reptile egg, uh, excuse me, who did it marry? don't you have to have two in the same place of the opposite sex? i mean, what if you get 2 males? and don’t they have to be at the same time in history? what if one is born just 10 years before the other one? oh, just missed it.
you've got to get them in the same place, of the opposite sex, at the same time, and they've got to be interested. you've got a whole bunch of problems, ok? serious problems. then, they tell the kids to think critically. which theory best describes the organism's evolution: gradualism or punctuated equilibria? look what they do. "kid, which theory is the best explanation, slow evolution or fast evolution?" do you see how they're giving the kids 2 options, both of which are false. which is correct, boys and girls, elephants are orange or elephants are pink? uh…oh, man. "mom, what should i write for this one?" (laughter) "i don't know, honey. go do your homework." they're neither one! do you realize how frustrating this is for christian kids?
they have go through public schools and have this kind of stuff day after day after day. it just wears at their faith. and they finally just start giving the evolution answers. and 75% of the kids from christian homes are being destroyed and losing their faith going through these public schools. that's not thinking critically. this textbook says, "which is correct, boys and girls, did evolution happen gradually or in short leaps and punctuated equilibria?" they give them 2 options: evolution happened slowly or evolution happened quickly. these guys are not capable of thinking outside the box. it didn't happen at all. is that an option? but i guarantee you if a kid puts, "it didn't happen at all" on his test question, the teacher's going to count it wrong.
i debated dr. pigliucci from knoxville, tn, ut knoxville, and i said, "dr. pigliucci, you've studied and taught evolution of plants for 10 years. you've received $650,000 in grant money to study the evolution of plants. what's the best evidence you know of for evolution?" that was my question. his answer was, "the evolution of whales." i said, "just exactly what kind of plant is a whale anyway? hmm?" he said, "the hippo is evidence for evolution because it's in the process of adapting to an aquatic way of life." the hippo is proof for evolution because it likes to go in the water? wow…i like to go in the water too. what's that mean? (laughter) evolution is a shell game.
everybody thinks that somebody else has the evidence. the biologist says, "oh, we don't have it. the geologist has it." the geologist says, "oh, we don't have it. the anthropologist has it." it's a shell game with 1 major difference. you know the con game where they put the pea down there and try to get you confused, you know, which one has the pea. the difference is for evolution, there's no pea under any of them! nobody has the evidence for evolution! nobody. they're all lying. they say, "what about horse evolution? yes, boys and girls, you see this? the 4-toed horse evolved to the 1-toed horse." that's a lie proven wrong 55 years ago. the hyrax is the so-called 4-toed horse. they're still alive today in africa and turkey.
it's a little bitty critter. there's one right there, a hyrax. they don't tell you the early horse had 18 pairs of ribs. the next one had 15. these animals are not even related. they just picked some bones and put them in the order they wanted them. the next one had 19 and then back to 18. this horse evolution theory was proven wrong a long time ago. there's a whole variety of horses today, by the way, big ones and little ones. but back in 1950, g.g. simpson, a famous evolutionist said, "this horse evolution was unintentionally falsified. it's not true. the evolution of the horse was all wrong. it never happened in nature. horse evolution has not held up under close examination." the whole idea was made up by othniel marsh back in 1874. he picked animals from all over the world and put them in order the way he wanted it to happen.
he never found them in that order, ok? modern horses are found in the same layers as the so-called "ancient horse." the ancient horse is just an animal still alive today in turkey and east africa. the ribs, toes and teeth are different. in south america, the fossils are in the reverse order! that is a real problem. they're never found in the order presented in the textbooks. the tulsa zoo finally took out their display because a friend of mine wrote them a letter and said, "hey, why do you have the horse evolution on display?" i've got the letters here somewhere. did you get those out, steve? they're in the suitcase, ok. you can come read those later. he wrote them a letter and said, "guys, your horse evolution thing was proven wrong like 50 years ago. you know, would you please remove the display?" and they said, "we don't have the funding to remove it."
so he went to a sign shop and got a bid for a sign, 60 bucks or something, that says, the sign would say, "we will take down this display as soon as we receive the funding because the display is not accurate." he went into the curator at the zoo and said, "here's 60 bucks for the sign. this guy will make the sign. when would you like it delivered?" he said, "what's this? oh, we're going to take down the display when we get the funding?" "yeah," he said, "you ought to at least warn the people, you know, that the display's not right." well, they didn't take it down. finally, i forget, 2000 people signed a petition saying, "get this thing out of our zoo." it came on the evening news 10 o'clock one night: "tulsa zoo has a false display." the next morning, it was gone. they found the funding! six months later, they put it back up. yale university still has their horse evolution on display proven wrong 55 years ago.
get more on the horse evolution in the book "icons of evolution". just because you can arrange animals in order, that doesn't prove anything. even if you find them buried in a certain order, that doesn't prove anything. if i get buried on top of a hamster, does that prove he's my grandpa? no! order of burial means nothing! but if you think you can arrange things and that somehow proves something. i've been doing a lot of research on the evolution of the fork. i've pieced together fragmentary evidence for a long time. i believe after studying this very intently that the knife evolved first. slowly, over millions of years, great geologic pressure squeezed it and made it concave on 1 side, convex on the other, and squeezed it into a spoon. and then, slowly, erosion cut grooves into the end and turned it into a fork.
i knew i was on to something here, but i felt like i had a missing link, particularly between the spoon and the fork. i just couldn't find it until one day i was flying to connecticut on us air. i was 30,000 feet off the ground, and the stewardess walked down the aisle and just handed me the missing link. i don't think she knew what she had. but my trained scientific eye picked it up right away. i said, "wow, this is it! i've got it!" i stuck it in my pocket. later that day, i went to popeye's chicken and found another one. (laughter) there they are, folks, the missing links. so the evolution of silverware is nearly complete. of course, we've got a few mutants along the way that didn't quite survive for some reason. and of course, people found out i was doing research on this, they all wanted to be famous, you know. so they tried to get in on the glory. they sent me their research. this one was an obvious fork head on a spoon handle.
i mean, look. it didn't get by me. i caught it right away. you know, i don't fall for stuff like that. even the races, of course, evolved a little bit along the way. look, if you want to arrange things, you can turn a cap to a cop to a dot to a dog by changing one letter at a time. you can play with this for a while and turn yourself into a fool when you're done. they say, "dinosaurs turned to birds." there are very few ideas as dumb as this one. the bible says god made the birds on day 5. he made the reptiles on day 6. evolution says reptiles came first and then the birds. you know, everything about evolution is backwards to the bible…everything. but this article says, "dinosaurs alive as birds, scientist says." ooo, wow, scientist says, well, that proves it right there. it's like it gives them some kind of authority. wow, scientists said. this is absurd.
everything about the bird evolution is baloney, ok? archaeoraptor was listed in 1999 as the missing link. yes, boys and girls, breaking news! national geographic: we found the missing link! they had a whole big article about the missing link has been discovered. then, a couple of months later, oops, it was proven wrong. you know, everything about these feathered dinosaurs has been proven baloney. but guess what, they're still teaching it. here's a whole book: the feathered dinosaurs of china. you just got this recently? why would they still be teaching something that's been proven wrong for 5 years? all this feathered dinosaur stuff is baloney. it's all baloney. we cover more on that on one of the debates i did. i forget which one. but they say, "birds are descendents of dinosaurs."
well, kids, in case you don't know, there are a few differences between a dinosaur and a bird. you don't just put a few feathers on them and say, "come on, man, give it a try. it won't hurt too bad." (laughter ) it's just not that easy. see, reptiles have 4 perfectly good legs. birds have 2 legs and 2 wings. so if his front legs are going to change to wings, somewhere along the line, they're going to be half-leg and half-wing. which means, on that particular day, he can't run anymore, and he still can't fly yet, so he's got a real problem. a serious problem. they say archaeopteryx is proof for evolution. you got one here on the table, brother, archaeopteryx? whenever you buy a bag of dinosaurs, they almost always stick one of these in there. archaeopteryx. wow. and this somehow gets the impression to the kids, "wow, we've got proof that dinosaurs turned to birds. here's one here with feathers on it." they're lying. it's still in the textbooks, i mean today, about archaeopteryx.
and it's been proven years ago, archaeopteryx was just a bird, a perching bird. alan feduccia, who believes in evolution, says it's not a missing link. it had the right features for flight. all the features of the brain were for flight, ok? archaeopteryx means "ancient wing," and he had claws on his wings. well, that's kind of unusual, ok. but 12 birds today have claws on their wings. there is the swan, the ibis, the hoatzin…several birds have claws. they say, "well, he had teeth in his beak." well, not many birds have teeth, some do. there's the hummingbird that has teeth in his beak. but most birds don't have teeth, i agree. actually, some mammals have teeth, some don't. some birds have teeth, some don't. some fish have teeth, some don't. some of you have teeth, some don't, ok? (laughter)
missing link! the chinese dino-bird was a forgery, and we don't have time to cover all of that today. but we give lots more on that on one of the debates i did. it's true feathers and scales are both made of keratin, same building block, that's true. but that' where the similarity stops, ok? actually, birds and reptiles have different lung systems. and they have different reproductive systems, different body coverings, different brains, and different circulatory systems. thousands of differences exist between dinosaurs and birds. that could be a whole seminar by itself. it's interesting…there are 2 different kinds of dinosaurs - the bird-hip and the lizard-hip dinosaur. their hips are very different. ask an evolutionist, "which type of dinosaur evolved into the bird? was it the bird-hip or the lizard-hip?"
and they will probably kind of hang their head and quietly say, "well, it was the lizard-hip." oh, so now the hip's got to turn around backwards too in addition to the billions of other changes you've got to make. there's no evidence of how dinosaurs evolved to birds. none. zero. so who's right? well, 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." sounds like he's open for a discussion. when i went to england, we tried everything to get to debate richard dawkins. he refused. he hung up on my secretary. his secretary hung up on me when i called back. jesus said, "ye shall love the lord your god with all your…..mind." there's no mental reason to reject christianity. it's a logical deduction to say, "hey, there must have been a designer."
you see something complicated like this world, you say, "hey, there must have been a designer." evolution is not a fact. it's not even a good theory. it's not even a hypothesis. it's a metaphysical research program. julian huxley said, "i suppose the reason we leapt at origin of species was the idea of god interfered with our sexual morays." we don't want god telling us what to do. evolution is a religion. even michael ruse said that. he said, "i'm an ardent evolutionist and an ex-christian, but i must admit in this one complaint, and mr. gish is one of many to make it, the literalists are absolutely right, evolution is a religion. this was true of evolution in the beginning, and it's true of evolution still today. we believe in evolution because the only alternative is creation." and that's right; that is the only alternative.
one russian atheist astronomer came over here to america, and he was speaking at the university, and he said, "folks, either there is a god or there isn't." i thought, "wow, now that's a brilliant conclusion to come to." but then he said, "both possibilities are frightening." i thought, "wow, now that is a brilliant statement." see, if there is a god, we'd better find out who he is and find out what he wants and do what he says. if there is no god, we're in trouble. we're hurtling through space at 66,000 miles an hour, and nobody's in charge. that's a scary thought. one famous scientist said, "this evolution transformationism is a fairy tale for adults. the theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. it is useless." even if evolution theory is true, it's useless. it's of no value to science whatsoever. "evolution is a kind of dogma which its own priests no longer believe but which they uphold for the people."
even most scientists don't believe in this, but they're afraid of losing their job or their research grant money or they're afraid of peer pressure. no different than a 5th grader, afraid what the other 5th graders think of them. we've got college professors out there teaching these lies that i've covered just because they have to. because that's their job. muggeridge said, "i'm convinced the theory of evolution will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future." satan is a liar. and everything about this theory is based on lies. even tahmisian said, "people who go about teaching evolution are great conmen. the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. we do not have one iota of fact to support this evolution theory." sir fred hoyle, the famous astronomer said, "well, life is so complicated, it could not have evolved on earth,
so it must have come from outer space." well, duh, all that does is postpone the problem. how did it happen out there, hmm? this guy says, "evolution is a light which illuminates all facts. all lines of thought must follow. this is what evolution is." pierre de chardin and the catholic priests, they got most of the catholics to believe in evolution, including the pope. and 3 times now a pope has said, "we believe in evolution." pierre de chardin is one of the guys responsible for the great piltdown hoax. he's a liar. an absolute bald-faced liar. god's word is a light, not evolution is a light. but if a kid goes 12 or 15 years to school in your school system, how's he going to view the world? probably like an evolutionist. why would they teach these lies?
well, some people think that if everybody believes in evolution, that will make it true. it doesn't matter if everybody believed in it. that wouldn't make it true yet. some people teach the lie to keep the paycheck coming in. kids, there are teachers that don't believe in evolution, but they keep teaching it anyway because they like their paycheck every friday. and they will lie to you to keep their paycheck coming in. some understand the bigger picture. evolution is the foundation for the new world order. we cover more on that on seminar part 5. evolution is the foundation for marxism, nazism, communism, socialism. that's why when i do a debate, i always call it, "creation versus evolutionism." it drives them nuts, you know? because they're used to saying, "oh, it's evolution versus creationism."
they always put the -ism on creation. so when i flash up my sign at the beginning that says, "creation versus evolutionism debate," they always sit there with that puzzled look on their face. they're trying to read it, thinking, "you know, something doesn't look right about that, but i don't know what it is." it's just a little jab in there, you know? why do people believe in evolution? well, you might want to get this book: "the case against darwin". excellent, short book, quick read for your intellectual friends who want to get the quick picture. some people, that's all they've ever been taught. when i spoke in russia, i was over there at the university, there were 30 professors came in to hear me speak, and after about an hour, one of the professors began crying. and 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. all he's ever heard is evolution. he wants you to keep going." i went for another hour. i spoke at a public school over there in russia. the room would seat 400 kids. they had 700 high schoolers come in there and listen to me for 2 hours. i mean, you could have heard a pin drop the whole time. i couldn't believe it. when i asked the principal before i started, i said, "hey, are there any things i shouldn't say to these kids? i know this is a public school, and it's kind of sensitive." he said, "what do you mean?" i said, "well, i'm a christian. is it okay to tell them, you know, to mention the bible?" he said, "oh yeah, tell them anything you want." i said, "well, would it be okay if i told them, you know, how to go to heaven?" he said, "sure, sure, please do. these kids would love to hear about christianity. they've never heard any of this." wow!
a door you could drive a truck through, brother. but they use the same lies in russian textbooks. here's a russian textbook talking about the forelimb proving evolution, the different geologic column strata, all the stuff we covered earlier. why do they believe this stuff? well, some believe it because it's all they've been taught. some, their job depends on it. some, they hope there's no god to answer to. they do not like to retain god in their knowledge, the bible says. they just don't like this idea. and it says, "god will send them strong delusion." the more i think about this, that is so true. anybody that believes they came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago has to be strongly deluded. think about it. oh, there's so much we could cover on this. some people simply have too much pride to admit they have been wrong all their life.
so kids are being taught evolution. there's no question about it. kids are being lied to in these textbooks. there's no question about it. what do we do about it? well, we cover that in great detail on our public school presentation on the green series of tapes. get the public school presentation. we'll tell you step-by-step what to do: how to get these lies out of your textbook; how you can get on the school textbook selection committee; how you can get your kid exempt from class. parents, if your kids are in a public school, you should send a little note to the teacher saying, "i don't want my child taught evolution. it's against my religious convictions." sign it, notarize it if you'd like, give it to the teacher and to the principal. then, if they continue giving you a hard time, you say, "oh, now, excuse me.
do you discriminate against people because of their religious convictions?" watch their eyes light up on that one. and if they still give you a hard time, contact me. i've got some lawyers waiting in the wings that are anxious to get a lawsuit like that. title 42 - discrimination based on religion. wow, that principal's going to be the garbage collector the next week. i guarantee that principal is going to call that teacher and say, "look, let this kid out of class. stop teaching evolution." i had one guy call me a couple of years ago. he said, "brother hovind, my 2nd grade daughter's teacher just called me, and the teacher said, 'mr. jones (whatever his name was, i forget), your 2nd grader is in my class, your daughter, and she stops me every time i start teaching something about evolution.' and the teacher said, 'i've just decided i'm going to skip this evolution stuff for the rest of the year
until your daughter is out of my class.'" (laughter) and my first thought was, yeah! and then i thought, "wait, wait, wait, wait…why are we sending 2nd graders off to war?" this is a battle the parents ought to be fighting, not the kids. we're the salt of the earth. salt irritates. hey, if nobody's irritated at you, you're not a good christian. you don't have to try to irritate them. you try to be salty…that will irritate them. salt preserves from corruption. how come you've got so many lies in the textbooks right here in tennessee in the middle of the bible-belt. where are the christians that are supposed to preserve the world, huh? why don't some of you get on the school board and do something about this? why don't some of you get a committee to say, "hey, let's take these pages out of the book. this is a lie."
it won't cost the school anything. i'll show you. how many of you would volunteer to take the pages out of the book and bring your own scissors? it won't cost the school a dime. let's do better than that. how many of you would pay $20 for the privilege of being on the committee to cut the pages out of the book and still bring your own scissors? we just had a fundraiser. we just raised $1000 for the school. wow! it won’t cost them a dime. there are many good, sincere, godly public school teachers, and i praise god for them. and they are as frustrated as i am with what's going on. if you've got a good teacher in your school that wants to do what's right, support them.
because i guarantee if there's a teacher that tries to get up and stand up for creation and against evolution, there's a good possibility they'll get fired or get persecuted for it. we cover much more on that on video #7, how teachers get persecuted for standing up for what's right. many teach this theory because they simply have never been taught anything else. many don't know it's okay to teach creation. it's perfectly fine. oh, what do we do? well, there's a long history of how we got this theory in our schools. and we'll cover all that in the public school presentation. what do we do about it? it's all covered on videotape #5. we'll show you the dangers of this theory. it's not just a dumb idea. evolution is a dangerous religion.
i'm going to tell you some real practical steps to fix it on seminar part 5. thank you for joining us. we 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 2 things, to turn from your sin and to turn to god.
god's looking for a change in your attitude where you say, "lord, i don't want to do wrong anymore. i'm sorry i've offended you. i want to do right." and you turn from sin, and you turn to god and say, "god, would you please forgive me? would you save me?" the bible says in romans chapter 3, verse 23: "for all have sinned and come short of the glory of god." you need to admit you're a sinner. number 2: 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 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, and 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. for more information: creation science evangelism, p.o. box 37338, pensacola, fl. 32526 usa that's 1-850-479-3466. or visit us online at www.drdino.com. that's: www.drdino.com. end of seminar 4c - dr. kent hovind - www.drdino.com - [ed.13.5]
Tidak ada komentar
Posting Komentar