Jesus-abc - Prophecy Today Ministries

Creation or Evolution?

Jesus-abc - Prophecy Today Ministries
Prophecy Today Ministries

| | |


This text is on both links "Creation" (where you are now) and "Me Too."
The later one, seen on the floating menu, goes into other areas of apologetics.


Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy
If you love science, then you have an obligation to seek truth. If not, you are no better off than a Christian who seeks prostitutes - you live contrary to your learning and that has to hurt.

"All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.

This mind is the matrix of all matter."

  Max Planck - The Father of Quantum Physics

Science should never be prejudice in its research and findings. It should not be regulated by large lobbying groups to persuade its findings, from searching and presenting the truth in institutions where research is to be conducted under the scientific method. Unfortunately, both of these statements are true in the nonconstructive sense here in the United States at the present time.

A quote from a famous scientist is seen below for all to read. This is what makes science the finest art in my opinion.

  The late great physicist Richard Feynman

.... For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid - not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated. . . .

In summary, the idea is to try to give all the information to help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or another.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that.

I would like to add something that's not essential to the science, but something I kind of believe, which is that you should not fool the laymen when you're talking as a scientist.

I'm talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is [more than] not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you're maybe wrong, that you ought to have when acting as a scientist. And this is our responsibility as scientists, certainly to other scientists, and I think to laymen.

DEFEATING DARWINISM by Opening Minds: Phillip E. Johnson,
pp 46-47: ISBN 0-8308-1360-8

Phillip E. Johnson is a graduate of Harvard and the University of Chicago. He was a law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren of the United States Supreme Court and taught law for more than thirty years at the University of California at Berkeley, where he is the Jefferson Peyser Emeritus Professor of Law.

Phillip E. Johnson goes on to explain..,

On the one hand, science is dedicated to empirical evidence and to following that evidence wherever it leads. That is why science had to he free of the Bible, because the Bible was seen to constrain the possibilities scientists were allowed to consider.

On the other hand, science also means "applied materialist philosophy." Scientists who are materialists always look for strictly materialist explanations of every phenomenon, and they want to believe that such explanations always exist.
  pp 80
Later Johnson states,
Darwinism is sustained not by an impartial interpretation of the evidence but by a dogmatic adherence to a philosophy even in the teeth of evidence.
  pp 83
Let us look at the difference between Empirical Science and Materialist Philosophy.

Empirical Science is based on facts that are observable and certain. Looking at the words of Richard Feynman, we can see we have sincerity and truth as prominent virtues in science discovery. Now, this is not to say that materialist philosophical ideology is based on false assumptions, though it may very well be, and has no virtue. The concept of material philosophy is that it is uncertain. There are areas of science that have not found answers to questions we ponder so we must speculate - philosophize in order to reason some form of answer.

Nevertheless, it must be "material." That is to say, it cannot be based on a religious concept. It is not based just on ideas but on physical tools such as the sciences provide for investigation... "material" as opposed to mythology or religion if you wish. The "idea" must arise from reality and not philosophy in and of itself excluded from the material, then; our philosophical concept can be developed on what empirical science has proven.

Thus; the argument starts, science is built on reality, and religious thought is based on mythological concepts with moral implications of varying sorts.

Men given to mythological beliefs are viewed as prejudiced toward concepts like Darwinism Evolution since the Bible states God created the heavens and the earth, while Darwinism is based on scientific proof.

However, the question rising from empirical science is -
"Is Darwinian evolution based on science or the wishful ideologies of man?"
"Scientific discovery is pointing in the direction of very precise and definite design in biology and the universe, therefore;
is evolution becoming a myth - a modern day idol of sorts - that technological man must sacrifice reason and nobility in order to remain faithfully true in supporting Darwinian concepts?"
Are our educational systems hiding evidence that points strongly away from Darwinian theory and using statements in text books that train a youngster to accept Darwinian ideas without any question?
Are text books showing farces as science facts and concepts found faulty several decades ago as being true within our schools till this day?

Cosmology & Physics

Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

Let us take a brief detour into our universe and see if there is any evidence of purposeful - meaningful design.

First, let us start with the idea that has been stated erroneously many times over in academia. Thus, influencing the culture and view of our day. That science and the Bible are at ends with one another.

Many people have heard the idea that Galileo had made some scientific discoveries and was hindered by the church due to its midevil concepts of the solar system and universe. But these concepts were also part of the scientific communities belief, and the academia of the day taught what the church had accepted as true. This means that the church ideas of nature were the same as the scientific concepts of space.

The main belief, for those who are not familiar with it, states that the earth was the center of the solar system and the stars and other planets go around the earth. Many people are unaware that this actually placed the earth in a undesirable location as it was thought as the 'bottom' of the totem pole in locals for God's most important creation, mankind, from the religious point of view of the day. Being at the center of the solar system placed the earth in the worst position philosophically.

But secular academia of our day states this backwards. It portrays the concept of 'center' as the most desirable which was not true during Galileo's day. It's a mistake that is repeated over and over.

A further look into the matter shows that Galileo had scientist opposed at his concept of how the universe works and they prompted the church to investigate Galileo's claims. The scientific community started the inquisition.

The story of Galileo's treatment at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church is often used to fuel the conflict view of science and religion. Historical research shows that this view is flawed. Galileo was no atheist. He believed in Scripture before he faced the Inquisition, and he believed in Scripture afterward. Galileo's "crime" was that he challenged the then reigning Aristotelian scientific paradigm, that a fixed and unmoving earth was at the center of the universe. This view, be it noted, was held both by the pagan philosophers of Galileo's day and by the churchmen who felt that it fit with their interpretation of Scripture." They were all in error. Ironically, it was Galileo, a believer in Scripture, who correctly challenged the then reigning scientific paradigm in the name of science.

Ravi Zacharias. Beyond Opinion: Living the Faith We Defend (p. 111). Kindle Edition.

The Big Bang - A Universe with a Beginning

Scientist tell us that the universe all started with a Big Bang. I thought good parties started off with a big bang, so I guessed why not get the universe started the right way. But what most people do not realize is that there had to be something before this "Big Bang," and whatever else might be implied needs a "cause" as well. The only solution according to scientist is there had to be a cause independent of time and space for one simple reason - time and space did not exist prior to their creation. And, I would say, creation is the right word to use when looking at what "caused" the universe to come into being.

Some scientists argue string theory in trying to rid the universe of a creator but this does not work. It only brings one back to the old question ... "what came first - the chicken or the egg?" Some have stated that a chicken is an egg's way of creating another egg and this is what scientist do when they attempt to remove the Creator from the universe.

One can see mankind philosophizing God in and out of existence while all the scientific evidence shouts that there is a Grand Designer. Imagine humanity as the egg in our scenario above. Man tries to rid the chicken's existence and substantiate his own in the same process. He uses circular reasoning in looking at the age of things and wonders why there are so many errors in the dating methods of our day. Science must not curtail itself into an incubating egg but must develop without hindrance with reason and discovery. The prejudices against God and Christian world views must not hinder science in its presentation of what science finds even if the evidence refutes Darwinism.

Looking at the universe as a whole, Robin E. Collins creates an analogy of life under a dome suited with precisely set dials, which control conditions of the entire universe actually.

Quoted from Lee Strobel's book The Case for a Creator: pp 121 - 135
Robin E. Collins:

"Okay." he replied. "Set aside the issue of how the biosphere got there in the first place. Let's say when you found it, there were twelve dials that controlled the conditions inside the dome. Each dial had an incredibly huge range of possible settings. When you departed, you let the dials at random and as a result no life was possible in the biosphere.

"Then you come back a year later. When you look at the dials you're amazed to find that each one of them has been carefully calibrated to just the right setting so that life is flourishing in the dome. Twelve dials, twelve different factors - all optimally set for life.

"Do you know what the headline would be in the newspaper the next day? It would say:
We would take that as proof that an intelligent being had landed and set those dials precisely where they needed to be for life.

"... I'm saying that the dials for the fundamental properties of the universe have been set like that. In fact, the precision is far greater. This would be totally unexpected under the theory that random chance was responsible. However, it's not unexpected at all under the hypothesis that there is a Grand Designer."
Further on Collins brings into consideration the biosphere in our analogy ...,
"You'd conclude that this biosphere was not there by accident. Volcanoes didn't erupt and spew out the right compounds that just happened to assemble themselves into the biosphere. Some intelligent being had intentionally and carefully designed and prepared it to support living creatures. And that's an analogy for our universe.

"Over the past thirty years or so, scientists have discovered that just about everything about the basic structure of the universe is balanced on a razor's edge for life to exist.

The coincidences are far too fantastic to attribute this to mere chance or to claim that it needs no explanation. The dials are set too precisely to have been a random accident. Somebody, as Fred Hoyle quipped, has been monkeying with the physics."

"When scientists talk about the fine-tuning of the universe," Collins said, "they're generally referring to the extraordinary balancing of the fundamental laws and parameters of physics and the initial conditions of the universe. Our minds can't comprehend the precision of some of them. The result is a universe that has just the right conditions to sustain life. The coincidences are simply too amazing to have been the result of happenstance - as Paul Davies said, 'the impression of design is overwhelming.''

We continue with author Lee Strobel's observations:
Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg, an avowed atheist, has expressed amazement at the way the cosmological constant - the energy density of empty space - is "remarkably well adjusted in our favor." The constant, which is part of Einstein's equation for General Relativity, could have had any value, positive or negative, "but from first principles one would guess that this constant should be very large," Weinberg said.
When asked about this "dial" (one of several dozen actually), Collins states ...,
"...the unexpected, counterintuitive, and stunningly precise setting of the cosmological constant "is widely regarded as the single greatest problem facing physics and cosmology today."

"...Well. there's no way we can really comprehend it - he said. "The fine-tuning has conservatively been estimated to be at least one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion. That would be a ten followed by fifty-three zeroes. That's inconceivably precise."
In order to envision what Collins is saying here, picture a dial on an old analog radio where the volume dial has ten lines representing each level as an indicator helping you remember what level of sound you might want to play your music.

This dial has "10" lines - a "1" followed by one zero, our dial for the cosmological constant needs to have a "1" followed by fifty three zeroes or hundred million billion billion billion billion billion lines on our radio for one "dial" - one "factor" of many such dials all precisely set to accommodate life.

Collins continues:
"...Put it this way," he said. "Let's say you were way out in space and were going to throw a dart at random toward the Earth. It would be like successfully hitting a bull's eye that's one trillionth of a trillionth of an inch in diameter. That's less than the size of one solitary atom.

"I'll tell you what," Collins said. "in my opinion, if the cosmological constant were the only example of fine-tuning, and if there were no natural explanation for it, then this would be sufficient by itself to strongly establish design."

Lee Strobel interjects;
I had to agree. The way I saw it, if the universe were put on trial for a charge of having been designed, and the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant were the only evidence introduced by the prosecution, I would have to vote "guilty" - assuming there was no hidden naturalistic explanation. Statistically, this would be a far stronger case than even the DNA evidence that is used to establish guilt in many criminal trials today.

Collins continued. "Now, think about adding together the evidence for just the two factors I've discussed so far - the cosmological constant arid the force of gravity," he said. "This would create an unimaginably stronger case. When you combine the two, the fine-tuning would be to a precision of one part in a hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. That would be the equivalent of one atom in the entire known universe!"
Collins is stating here that having just two dials set properly is equivalent to being able to pick one atom out of all atoms the universe is composed of by random chance and picking the right one.

William Lane Craig states ...,
Δ "Certainly there have been earlier ages when the culture was more sympathetic toward Christianity." he said. "But I think it's indisputable that there has never been a time in history when the hard evidence of science was more confirmatory of belief in God than today."

"What's important to understand, Lee, is how reversed the situation is from, say, a hundred years ago," Craig continued. "Back then, Christians had to maintain by faith in the Bible that despite all appearances to the contrary, the universe was not eternal but was created out of nothing a finite time ago. Now, the situation is exactly opposite.

It is the atheist who has to maintain, by faith, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, that the universe did not have a beginning a finite time ago but is in some inexplicably way eternal after all. So the shoe is on the other foot. The Christian stand confidently within biblical truth. knowing it's in line with mainstream astrophysics and cosmology. It's the atheist who feels very uncomfortable and marginalized today."
Δ William Lane Craig, PHD, THD: A member of nine professional societies including; the American Philosophical Association, the Science and Religion Forum, the American Scientific Affiliation, and the Philosophy of Time Association.

Robin E. Collins graduated with degrees in mathematics and physics at Washington State University with a GPA of 3.93. He went on to earn a doctorate in physics at the University of Texas in Austin and majored in philosophy as well.
    Lee Strobel The Case for a Creator pp 121 - 135


Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

During Darwin's era, cells were considered blobs of Jell-O like matter and they seemed to magically appear, for instance, in old beer. Discovering life and its origin during Darwin's time was like explaining that geese came from barnacles simply because one observed geese resting on rocks that were covered by barnacles previously, hence we have the evolution of barnacle geese as monks observed during this simple time.

This might sound delightfully comical, but modern scientific men have stated basically the same in hopes of sustaining a failing concept - Darwinian evolution. This theory is called, "punctuated equilibrium" and was invented by a German scientist seeking to preserve his faith - in Darwinian Theories - due to the evidence for evolution within the fossil record being completely void.

If creatures seem to appear from no where in the fossil record as they do by countless numbers, and if there are no fossils anywhere on earth showing forms of creatures changing from one species into another, does this not point to creation?

Basically, punctuated equilibrium states that a new species pops out of a parent fully formed. Believing geese come from barnacles is not really off in comparison to what this man of science was proposing. The lies told by scientist persist to our present day in order to keep the public in support of the ideology. Since our educational institutions sponsor the lies themselves within their textbooks, scientist are prone to using the tools of science to support a concept that has no bases in science whatsoever. On most occasions, scientist do not lie. A few lies told by unprincipled individuals has set in motion a cultist like blind belief within our society. The textbooks themselves contain outright lies to promote Darwinism. Most individuals, including scientist, are victims of indoctrination from early grade school through higher education.

In a book titled, "Darwin's Black Box," (Michael Behe - a molecular biologist) we find what was once viewed as simple living cells are now known to be more complex than spaceships. Phillip E. Johnson's states, "biologist cannot find any Darwinian link" - the concept of random probabilities creating mechanisms of life is far beyond material philosophy and contradicts scientific discovery outright. To insist on a cell coming into existence due to random probabilities, as evolution must state, is no more different than believing geese come from barnacles in light of modern science.

Now, we see the 'idea of macro evolution' being challenged by empirical science and there is a division between macro and micro evolution, which evolutionist attempt to obscure since macro evolution is obscure and more mythical ... there is no evidence to support it - no material evidence.

Macro covers the spectrum, which is to state that evolution is the cause for all life forms evolving from simpler - singular varieties and down to the single cell itself.

Micro suggest changes within a particular species, such as red and white roses, donkeys, mules, and horses, and various sizes of a bird's beak to name a few.

Before the scientific method became complex with better understanding, the only way macro evolution could be deduced was upon material philosophy - what Darwin expected to be, empirical science. Darwin hoped to find transitional forms - fossils showing physical evidence of one creature becoming another. He frowned at the idea that there were none. He wrote that the fossil record must show these transitional forms and speculated during this early era that the fossil record would do so through future discovery, or his theory would not stand on empirical science.

During Darwin's time, the concept of macro evolution was what seemed to be "material philosophy" - finch beaks, turtles of varying color and so on, was based on what Darwin would hope to be - "empirical science."

Today, there are no transitional forms to be found anywhere. You will read of hoaxes below and what science later found to be mistakes. We have material philosophy without substance. No empirical evidence but wishful, faithful - "religious" adherence to macro evolutionary concepts that are not replicated in nature anywhere on earth.

It seems that the empirical science is turning the tables around on Darwinism. To believe in macro evolution in the lack of evidence for its account and in the face of the evidence that says, "It's impossible," brings the Darwinist to a point of fervent - theistic adherence.

We cannot give into the idea that Darwinism is not true even if we really become religious in our philosophy as to avoid the only other logical explanation - "In the beginning God!" Why do people want to avoid God? Scientist who finally come to the conclusion that Darwinism is impossible will tell you aliens from another world are responsible for life here on earth. But that leaves the same question we all ask unanswered. Where does life come from and why are we here? It does not answer the question but, sets the same question on a cosmic level. The Bible states humanity will naturally seek for solutions elsewhere when it comes to finding and believing God and the Bible. This is due to the fall spoken of in Geneses.

It has been said that man needs a God. As we can see from man's behavior, both Darwinist and Theologian, this is true. The only difference is that Darwinist must create fabrications to support their theology while those who trust the Bible have found scientific evidence that confirms the prophesies, localities, and historical figures as being accurate. The Bible is considered the most accurate work of antiquity. The Dead Sea Scrolls have proven we have an accurate copy to this day. The testimony of its writers have been proven trustworthy by psychological and legalistic examination. Archeology proves over and over again the accuracy of its contents.

Here is the statement of a Theist - a religious concept - since there is no way of knowing whether it is true or false. It is just an idea that scientist hold on to religiously since they have no choice.
Four and a half billion years ago, the young planet Earth was a mass of cosmic dust and particles. It was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began.

NOVA: The Miracle of Life:

Here is a statement within the book of Geneses of the Bible.
Genesis 1:1-3
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was* on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.

Though the same could be said concerning the testability of the statement's factual account, the first five books of the Bible have an inherent mathematical property that statisticians say cannot be there by accident - neither by primitive man's design. The National Department of Defense has confirmed the results found by one of the foremost minds in quantum physics, Eliyahu Rips. The mathematics journal "Statistical Science," reported the findings due to the outstanding implications of this discovery - and "outstanding" this discovery is! The Bible claims itself to be "God breath." That is men penned out the words of the Bible under the Holy Spirit's influence. This mathematical principles would be one indication among many others that this is a fact.

Men of science have suggested if we can find life outside of our planet earth, we may be consoled by the fact that we are not alone.

What an incredible scientific-philosophical realization this is.


due to receiver dishes - the size of buildings - that are waiting for some "non random" sequential signal to fall upon them.


because we may be consoled by some other intelligent life form.

Has man failed to console himself? Can man console himself effectively and live in peace? Will science resolve our differences? Can science bring man peace? Can there be an inner need in mankind that keeps him seeking for answers? Will there be a message for these giant ears to hear as they wait for a whisper of hope in the dark depths of our universe - the conclusion being we are not alone.

Decades have passed and millions of random signals generated by the universe has revealed no other form of communication as science fails in this respect. Man is disappointed as he seeks for an answer outside of God's infinite love for humanity.

Yet, here, within our own bodies is a DNA codec that would fill the Grand Canyon with books 78 times over with "non random" - intelligently sequenced code. The genetic code uses 64-letter alphabet called codons. Unlike our alphabet in the English language using 26 letters, the DNA alphabet is far more complex in number alone.

A message that our scientist do not have capacity within their computers to maintain is written for each man, women, and child that ever lived. And each single "one" has their own 78 special - "Grand Canyon full of books" depiction of what God had intended for every being on earth. For anyone to argue that random selectivity created the DNA code is absurd. Yet a brief signal upon our giant receiving dishes would be miraculous. Scientist do not see the implications of the DNA code. Life itself is of God. This code is a sure sign of a designer. There can be no doubt.

For men to look anywhere else is blind foolishness and not science. Man points his intellect away from God and finds himself blind and empty of truth. This was true thousands of years ago and it is true today within our age of scientific enquiry.

You know that I am a Christian from what is said here. But that does not prejudice me against science. I am truly fond of science. This is why I was taken back on discovering that scientist are willing to lie to keep grant money coming in and to appease philosophical concepts that do not have any bases in science. People have said that we need to keep religion out of science. Most of the science were developed by men who had a belief in a literal God. They believed in God and have or had a desire for scientific discovery. Today, we have Darwinist keeping scientific reason out of science and the classroom.

Many top line scientist today are refuting evolution as being true simple because it's like a religion keeping afloat the wishful thinking of macro evolutionary concepts of Darwinism and Neo Darwinism. Many scientist are saying there has to be a creator since design is seen everywhere inquire is made.

I can be a very happy Christian and avoid going into all this work here and focus on other areas. I could even unconsciously agree to some obscure evolutionist idea that eludes me and be more than delighted practicing my faith. But the fact is, Darwinian evolution is no more than a concept that has blinded good men of science and has led many to create fabrications in order to support the concept itself.

And in all honesty, as I do my research, I am learning that this false concept is very destructive to some in looking at what I feel and have come to know is true. That there is comfort for man and he does not disappear into oblivion after he dies.

I do feel a moral obligation to do what I do here. If you love science, then you have an obligation to seek truth. If not, you are no better off than a Christian who seeks prostitutes - you live contrary to your learning and that has to hurt. If not, then you cannot be a Christian nor a scientist. This is why a moral code, such as the Bible, is necessary. You are either true or false.

The Bible states man is helpless. This is the fundamental belief of Christianity. God has to save man because he cannot save himself. Man can easily disillusion himself and remain blind without too much effort at all, as we see with man's appeal for the disillusion of materialistic philosophies that are supposed to uphold truth but deny it totally in the face of so much contradictory evidence of our modern age.

Men would rather believe a lie blindly and say it is true than to repent of their ways, accept the fact that they are untrue in light of God's word, ask for forgiveness and ask Christ to redeem them from eternal separation from God as to live in an eternal state in Heaven and in peace.

Now looking the concept of life being found would disprove the Bible ... God as Creator and man made in His image, I have to say that it is a nonsense statement. It's like for a flow in a prominent Christian and claiming Christianity is false based on the results. Both stances are false when we look at the Bible. So the Bible must be vied for what it says and not what people imagine would and wouldn't validate it. The concept that there might be life outside of earth does not conclude there is no Creator God. The fact that men fail, even prominent Christians, does not disprove the Bible but actually prove the Bible text even further.

What is scary is that there are men in the Christian faith claiming that intelligent life outside of earth might guide us to a better knowledge of our Bible. This sounds like the Antichrist and false prophet spoken of within the Bible. Of course these false claims co-inside with the false ideas of macro evolution.

Some unique discoveries within the research of DNA has found that the diversion (micro evolution) - changes occurring over set periods of time - started 6,000 years ago. That puts the amazing discovery in synchronization with the Bible's timeline.

Mitochondrial DNA is exactly alike in all humans.

Thus, all humans have descended from only one women. She lived a mere 6,000 years ago.

Here in this video is this discovery and discussion:

Rev 2:11

11 "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. He who overcomes shall not be hurt by the second death." '

    Jesus of Nazareth

We will not go into the theological implications of what this text is saying at this time, but know - for there to be a second death, there has to be a first one. There is life after death.

Jesus spoke of his death and mission to His disciples when He said, "If I do not go, the other will not come" (paraphrase). He is speaking of His death and sacrifice for humankind would bring to each individual the Comforter ... the Holy Spirit to assure man of God's love and true word. Jesus calls Him the Comforter because this is exactly what the Holy Spirit does within the believer. Jesus spoke on another occasion mentioning He would not leave us alone. Once again, Prophesying of the purpose of His crucifixion.

This is what has kept Christianity going ... the Holy Spirit, not man's will or ability. This much is certain! We fail miserably as Christians under our own power but within each believer is the indwelling of God's Spirit and this is what makes the difference between Heaven and Hell. And, - "Yes," they are both real.

Christ's resurrection is what the Bible calls the "first fruits." To spend eternity with the maker of this universe in tranquility one must accept Christ's finished work on the Cross.

This scientific discovery's implication is showing that God's purpose is revealed within the Bible - and if so, then all life on earth are created by Him and so is the universe itself - due to the fact that this is what the Bible states. Men wrote under the influence of the Spirit's conviction. This is proven within the inherent characteristics of the Bibles design in its literature and prophetic announcements, which is mind boggling and proven true under test.

This is what theologians have been saying, which is what scripture states clearly within itself, for well over two thousand years (2 Tim 3:16-17).

Therefore, there is a God and a Creator, which is what science has been telling us all along as well - regardless of how blind men of science choose to be when they adhere to a false theistic concept called Darwinism (macro evolution).

To read on the Bibles incredible design, click on the "Me Too" link.

Below are quoted words of Stephen C. Meyer, PHD: Cambridge University of England: Focus of study;

"... scientific evidence actually supports theistic belief. In fact, across a wide range of the sciences, evidence has come to light in the last fifty years which, taken together, provides a robust case for theism."

"Only theism can provide an intellectually satisfying causal explanation for all of this evidence.... The major developments in science in the past five decades have been running in a strongly theistic direction ... Science, done right, points toward God."

"Those are just three examples," he concluded, "and that's just the beginning."
  Lee Strobel The Case for a Creator pp 74, 77

We have seen empirical science finding evidence for the Bible's supernatural design and further below empirical science disproves Darwinian thought.

Man has to live under his beliefs and to stand upon them. If these ideas are not under what is called scientific reasoning, they cannot be without hindrances if we wish to call our work science.

This can be true and does not necessarily have to be true. It depends on the individual. A fair thinking man will accept truth based on his ability to reason when it comes to science. An unfair individual will not - even in the face of science. Men remain faithful to their beliefs even if the beliefs are incorrect, scientist and theologian the same.

Evolution is taught to children as young as preschoolers in textbooks designed to teach one how to read. It is a manifesto of what is expected to be ingrained into the minds of every human being within our educational system. Although there is no evidence for macro evolution (The concept of higher life forms evolved from lower ones contradicts science and evidence.), we are programmed to believe in an ideology as if it were a dogmatic religious concept one must believe in.

"I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian,
but I must admit that in this one complaint --
and Mr. Gish is but one of many to make it --
This raises the literalists [Creationist] are absolutely right."

"...Harvard entomologist and sociobiologist Edward O. Wilson tells us that we now have an "alternative mythology" to defeat traditional religion."
Dr. Michael Ruse, Professor of philosophy and zoology at the University of Guelph
[Brackets mine]

Children are indoctrinated into an ideology that has no scientific reasoning or facts to support it. In fact, all the evidence suggests the exact opposite. Nonetheless, if you are old enough to start reading, you are old enough to be indoctrinated.
Let us look at what indoctrination does to an individual.

Listen carefully to the show scene on the link below from Sid Roth's TV program. I suggest you hear this speaker twice in order to take in what is being said. Especially if you have attended (most of us have since grade school on up) school and were taught that Darwinian evolution is true.

Consider the above dialog in the discussion of physics concerning the universe. Sid Roth uses the analogy in the video here as he tosses the pieces of a puzzle out onto the studio floor. He indicates that all these pieces would have to come together on their own without any outside intelligent affects. This is what Darwinian evolution teaches us. Only it is much - much more complicated than a puzzle coming together, though the analogy is a good one. The puzzle would need to be made up of billions (1,000,000,000s) of pieces and each piece needs to be millions of time greater in complication - the pieces would need to have microscopic 'key' fittings and each one must be unique! Let this thought sink into your conscience. Reread the above paragraph and let it sink in.

Even if you are a born again believer you still were indoctrinated since childhood to believe in what is scientifically impossible. The renewing of your mind, speaking Biblically, takes time in this area whether you are a Christian or not.

This takes time, study, and reinterpreting your world. The reinterpreting part comes in the form of just letting all this information "sink in" into your way of thinking. After many hours of diligent work and study. Why? Be cause our minds have literally been molded figuratively and physically (There is a scientific study on brain structure and growth from childhood is shaped by thoughts learned.) to believe in something that is not to be questioned by anyone period. Thus you must believe in Darwinian evolution without regard to any evidence for or against it. I say for it as well since there is proof of micro evolution as being true while there is substantial evidence against Darwinian evolution (macro evolution).

The more educated you are the worse it gets. Having a PHD only makes it worse not better unless you can be fair and deduce outside of the 'box' (step out of yourself) of how your were raised to think and believe. Then, after seeing this show on the link above at least once, read about my journey and study on the misleading ideology of Darwinism and the farces being promoted as scientific truth in museums, text books, and our educational system throughout the rest this page, you might be in a position to question the theory of evolution. That is to say you will still be quite upset. Especially if you love science as I do. The educational system itself is duped and was designed to give you a false concept - philosophy - as to the reason you and I are here. You can not be objective towards Darwinian thought within an educational system without risking your job as a teacher or being ridiculed as a student. To put it directly - to give you the notion that there is no Creator.

This indoctrination into Darwinian philosophy was conducted over many years of your young life and is implanted deeply into your thinking process whether you can see this or not. This is the purpose of indoctrination. You do not understand your own thoughts on a matter as to where they come from and these are deep-rooted - strong ideas that make up the underlying foundational structure of your philosophy (thoughts). It happens in the process of maturing from a child to adult.

You will say you can remember and therefore do know where you ideas come from. But how quickly would you allow these ideas to be challenged if at all? How 'open minded' are you in questioning your ideas? Will you allow that or not? Do you write off people who question traditional Darwinian thought just not to be moved from a comfort zone. It does not matter if you call yourself an atheist, a believer of one religion or another or somewhere in between.

There is good reason you do not challenge these ideas by the way. That is because you were raised to believe them as true.

Do you see the point?

It is as if someone tells you 2 + 2 = 7: You know this is wrong, but what if you were raised to believe that 2 + 2 = 7 and someone one day says you are wrong!!! You would argue that the equation equals 7.

This is how we have been indoctrinated into believing that macro evolution is true. This includes professors teaching the topic in universities around the world.

Now math is straight forward and since you have been taught correctly regarding math you may jest at the idea. But this again is the point. We jest comically at the idea that Darwinian evolution not being true. But we do not have any data readily available to draw any other conclusion. As a matter of fact any empirical science that contradicts macro evolution is kept far from any museum or text book and the universities.

As an analogy let us look at how we vote. Here in the U.S.A. most people who vote for a politician will not take the time to search out the person who they are considering to vote for. They go with a party, an agenda, a perspective but never really see what the person might do or not based on good research on the potential candidate. I would say that applies to most voters. A governing politician will rule in their office of service and you can only hope for the best. I would say most of us vote with our fingers crossed behind our backs hoping our decision is the right one. So the point here is that we do not really look into matters as we should. We just accept what we are told by fliers and the local news.

If you say you believe the Bible, then do you question for a moment what Genesis says when it says God created and says it is good? If you believe in Darwinian evolution, you do not believe in what the Bible tells us. If you hesitate for a moment, when the question is asked, it is due to the indoctrination you experienced as a child in the area of origins.

The Bible tells us there is something missing in our lives and it says that something is God. It tells us how to find God and says God is our maker and point of origin. The Bible tells us this is so with the entire universe - known or unknown.

Now. let me point this out clearly point by point if you call yourself a Bible believer and believe in Darwinian evolution as to how wrong you are to believe both without ever realizing it.

  1. Darwin said that life improves upon itself through trial and error without any intelligent order of design. It is just probabilities. Also, life became more complex and ordered in this fashion. Since this philosophy says the less advantageous forms died due to the struggle for survival, the strong survive and the weak die.

  2. The Bible says that God created everything and that it was good.

  3. Meaning:

    1. There was no death.

    2. There was no sin.

    3. There was no improvements brought about by the struggle for survival.

    4. There was no struggle.

    5. There was NO DEATH.

    6. NO Evolution of the species.

    7. There was no death at the creation till after the fall. Things did not get better but instead they got worse, much - much worse.



Do not say God used man's philosophy (Darwinian thought) to make life on earth as we see it today or at any other time if you claim to be a Bible believer. Things are not improving but getting worse unless medicine (intelligence and work for a purpose) is done to change that.

So as a Bible believer, you evidently cannot say you believe in macro evolution (Darwinian evolution). What we do have are small changes within the life forms we see. That is normal and is everywhere. But to say we are the product of mass mutations which improved over time all based on philosophy and probabilities is insane. It flies in the face of science. When will the schools, museums, and text books stop showing us farces, false assumptions proved wrong decades ago? How many more children will be lied to and indoctrinated as you and I were?

Speaking for myself, I was raised a Catholic and was told by my mother as a child that God created the world, Man and Woman. Nevertheless, within the same educational system of faith came the concept of evolution that stated we evolved from some kind of microscopic cell. This developed a dual reality as to what might be true and what might not. In one realm, you had a Father in Heaven who loved you. This Father had a Son who showed Himself to us two thousand years ago whose name is Jesus. He died for us because He loved us so much. Now, we can call each other brothers and sisters under the banner of this Father and Son. There are moral codes we must follow and were instructed to do so.

In the other realm, we did not have a father in heaven not alone a son of a father. People came into existence due to some unknown forces of nature. It all started in some puddle of obscurity and as I grew older, the moral compass I was given seemed to become obscure as well. We were not brothers and sisters but competitors for survival. The most suited for survival would pass their genes to their offspring. The less fit would die off.

It seemed you could believe in God even though science and reason was pointing to another philosophy or truth. Others said, the Bible was written by ancient people. Men of simple understanding need to create a god because there was a lack of scientific enlightenment; therefore, religion is a creation of men designed to help man cope. At least this is what was being presented through the era I was raised in.

We had God, Christmas - Jesus birthday, and we had science class. I grew very fond of science and had become disenchanted about God. Especially when everything in our society was pointing to the reality of the world ... the real world and all its people who were now under the philosophy of a mud puddle existence and striding off the pathway of the moral compass that was presented as truth. The truth is what everyone else believes to be true and if you do not follow in the examples around you, you were excommunicated ... not cool in the vernacular of the day.

We are told the dogma of Christians was the great evil and armed with scientific - unbiased reasoning, we can move forward into the light of philosophical enlightenment. Logic and nature with its unbiased premises is to suffice for humanity. The biases of religion are to be left out of the reasoning process when it comes to purity of science.

You will find that concepts long proven false by science are still being upheld as factual. This is due to outright bias and to what I call the "brain washing effect" - due to lies being told to young children, the literal indoctrination of people into an ideology, which mimics cultic practices in persuasion and belief.

If you realize that one or two of the questions above are loaded, you are correct, but this is what you faced as a child as you were learning evolution. You have to answer the test questions based on evolution being a fact when there is a staggering amount of evidence that tells else wise. You were shown diagrams, as we all were in school, of concepts on evolutionary theory as being scientific and factual while, indeed, these concepts were proven false and outright frauds decades if not centuries earlier.

The images shown to children are used to invoke "imagination and curiosity letting the farces grow into the child's thinking pattern. The children accept what is told to them as being factual because they do not have a base of knowledge to invoke any questioning of the material. This would be called learning in the normal sense but since lies are mainstay of the course, it is really indoctrination into a concept which science says is false.

So, naturally, what we face as children in school is a biased indoctrination into a belief system and the questions are designed to do this very thing.

When communist want to condition people, they do not teach them politics, they teach evolution for this very purpose.
Stars and Stripes 1969 ... Germany 1919
DVD # 5 Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation DVDs

  "Stars and Stripes"
  1969 Rules found by Allied forces in Dusseidorf, Germany 1919

Does God exist?

Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

So, is there a God or is everything about evolution that we are taught true? Were the people of ancient times less sophisticated than we are? Was God created to explain the unknowable of the time and as a way to control society as some have suggested?

Is religion the cause of all or most wars in our world? Are the words of Jesus to cause pain and suffering? On the other hand, is this due to man's fallen nature and the Bible's moral compass that man drifts off - responsible for the pain of this world?

Is it possible for Life, to come into being from inanimate matter, and is evolution making for a more robust genetic pool of humanity as time marches on - are people becoming more fit due to natural selection?

I will try to answer these questions on this page as well on the "Me Too" link. The "Creation" link is duplicated on the "Me Too" page as well.

Is Evolution an unbiased scientific concept?
Is science unbiased and based on nobility and truth?

Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

Let us look at the inherent characteristics of evolutionary theory that are not favorable for the human race's existence.

First, the title of the "Famed" book, "The Origin of Species" is a partiality of what Darwin had in mind. The complete title

"The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection:
The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life"

speaks of the political correctness involved when men look upon others as being less ... a lower form of humanity ... people who are lower on the scales of evolution. The "or" in the title is really bothersome. I guess you can have "either," "and," or "or" depending on your personal preferences.

The aborigines of Australia were exterminated based on Darwinian concepts.

The preservation of the aborigines must have been one of a difficult order to perform since these tribal people, herded like animals, were shot and killed like cows in a slaughterhouse. Some of their bones are stored in museums to show off the lesser species of humanity and support Darwin's Theory as being true.

We see the survival of the fittest taking place here - there is no doubt. Their stone tools could not stand up against rifle fire.

One of the most important yet least-known aspects of Darwin is his racism: Darwin regarded white Europeans as more "advanced" than other human races. While Darwin presumed that man evolved from ape-like creatures, he surmised that some races developed more than others and that the latter still bore simian features. In his book, The Descent of Man ..,

People who follow the fabricated concept of evolution have promoted prejudices and genocide based on Darwin's theory. They were not contrary to Darwinism beliefs but in accord with this false theory. If there is a higher order of beings, then there is the lesser and this is exactly what evolution teaches...,

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world."

    Charles Darwin

What a contrast the reader finds in the words of God noted by Jeremiah in the Bible below and the words of Charles Darwin that we read!

Jeremiah 31:3-4

3 The Lord has appeared of old to me, saying: "Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.

4 Again I will build you, and you shall be rebuilt,

  Perhaps these are some of Darwin's "lesser beings"?

Girl in IndiaBoys in thier playground

Matthew 25: 35-36; 38-40

35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in,

36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you (they asked Jesus)?

39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

40 "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'

    Jesus of Nazareth

Jesus considers the "least of these" to be His brothers and sisters. He did not see them as "lower" on some imagined evolutionary scale.

Reading the rest of scripture in Matthew reveals that those who do not enter Heaven are those who did not help the less fortunate. To put it Biblically, tyrants are overcome by their own devices and are snared by the very work of their hands, while those who are the "less evolved" on Darwin's evolutionary scale are depicted as the ones whom God loves and tends to.

Evolution teaches the less fortunate are weak and will have to succumb to the stronger. This is not an exaggeration. You may be an evolutionist and help the meek, feed the poor and so forth, however, the fundamental teaching of evolution suggest and demands the lesser die and be replaced by the stronger - more robust.

Does judging the less fortunate, the foreigner, the Negro, and Mongoloid as well as other cultures, which might not be as industrial as the west, as being lower on the scales of evolution cause problems in our society? Are there people who too whole-heartily agree with the notion of evolving species see reason to take advantage and even murder the so-called lesser "evolved" people for the sake of their own twisted ideologies?

"As Darwinism gained currency, humanity did sink into greater degradation and brutalization than any since written records of human history began. A generation later, the world would witness the rise of the eugenics movement; racial hygiene societies; the first genocide in recorded history; Nazi Germany; Stalinist gulag... But Hitler and Marx were not citing Louisa May Alcott's Little Woman for support. They were citing Darwin..."
Ann Coulter, "Godless" pp 268-269:

There is a correlation here, and Darwinism definitely states this is part of our natural world. This notion does not stop with those who may not be as "industrious or 'evolved'" - but any group of people who are under the scrutiny of a twisted mind which thinks itself as being highly "evolved."

The family tree of the human race needs to be "trimmed," it would seem, by those who consider themselves highly evolved by Darwin's philosophy.

What ideas could have been prevalent at the time of Darwin that he could make such a statement?

By evolution, the weak and less robust must die. If the weak continue to live, they might dilute the genetic pool of humanity. This sounds absurd I am sure and I hope all who read these words agree. We would hope that no one in our day and age could have such a philosophy, and that human life is cherished and each individual is considered unique and special.

I extend this courtesy to the unborn as well since the diagrams depicting the human embryo as going through evolutionary stages are a complete fraud. This was the first faked evidence that evolved specifically for support of Darwinism. Since there was no evidence for Darwin's theory of evolution, Natural selection, natures way, fabricated a lie for the evolutionist. It had done so for this very purpose by a German scientist.

"....They were first exposed in the late 1860s, when his colleagues accused him of fraud."

"... It's worse than that!," he declared. "They are still being used, even in upper-division textbooks on evolutionary biology."

"...Gould said textbook writer's should be ashamed of the way drawings had been mindlessly recycled for over a century. At least, he was honest enough to call it what it was: 'the academic equivalent of murder'"

"Haeckel cherry-picked his examples," Wells explained. "...He stacked the deck by picking representatives that came closest to fitting his idea - then he went further by faking the similarities."

"...Biologists know that embryos are not most similar in their earliest stages."

Lee Strobel The Case for a Creator pp 48 - 50
Lee Strobel asks these questions of Stephen C. Meyer, PHD: Cambridge University

Stephen Jay Gould (September 10, 1941 - May 20, 2002) was a prominent American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science.

Ernst Haeckel, a German biologist, had supposedly shown that embryos from various animals were identical to each other in their earliest stages. Today, however, biologists recognize that Haeckel faked his drawings to support his theory that embryos in essence reenact their species' evolutionary history as they develop.

British embryologist Michael Richardson, along with an international team of experts, conducted a 1997 study comparing Haeckel's drawings with actual embryos. His conclusion? Haeckel's work "looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology"

(Elizabeth Pennisi, "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," Science 277, 1997, p. 1435).

In spite of repeated discrediting, however, Haeckel's ideas and drawings still appear in many recent textbooks and are presented as fact.

by Bill Jahns

...the charts and textbooks continue to promote this missing link despite what we already know.

This is the same case as Ernst Haeckel's fake drawings of the various embryos of different organisms to show that they all have the same ancestor. The problem?

The errors were exposed in the 1880s and 90s over and over. Yet, the textbooks even in 1990 (and some even today) carry the same drawings as proof of evolution!

Data manufactured:

"...Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities."

"Haeckel’s German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for blundering—without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!

Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realised that the recapitulation theory is false.

Nevertheless, the recapitulation idea is still advanced as evidence for the theory of evolution in many books and particularly encyclopedias and by evolutionary popularizers like the late Carl Sagan"

Let us look at another example how Darwinism ideology is protected like a secret society's religion:

Regarding Noah's flood. A worldwide flood is in direct opposition to the Uniformitarian theory where Macro evolution finds some imaginary footing. Uniformitarianism is a concept that states everything we see in the universe and nature here on earth is due to eons of time and natural processes. If this sounds so plausible to you do not forget you and I, along with just about everyone else in the west, was weaned on these ideas before we could read and wright ... Remember the cereal box teaching children to read with the statement, "Millions of years ago there were dinosaurs..?"

Why do we have such great ages to all there is? Because without this imagined and manmade philosophy we cannot use our imaginations to create the imagined Darwinian theory. Remember you "imagine something being real" - regarding your belief system, before it becomes a reality for you. So indoctrination through repetition and imagination is important to Darwinian (Macro) evolution's ideology because there is no empirical science to support it. This is why people get so burned up when someone states Darwinian evolution is not true. We have been indoctrinated into believing it.

When Emmanuel Villakoski first came out with his book (A secular scientist), "Worlds in Collision" and it was first published by McMillan. The professors were so angry that this book was published because it showed the impossibility of Uniformitarianism, "Worlds in Collision" totally disproves Uniformitarianism. Before people had full copies of the book, people were writing rebuttals not even knowing for sure what he said. I am not generalizing, but a lot of scientists are dishonest. When their pet theory is destroyed, they will lie, connive and do as much as possible to ensure that their theory stays alive and this pet theory is that man exists by an evolutionary process.

The thing about Emmanuel Villakoski is that he doesn't even really believe that the Bible is the Word of God. In fact, there are parts of the Bible that he completely rejects. He's not a Christian; he's a Jewish scientist, but he looks at the Bible as a history book, and he takes the things that happened or that the Bible declares happens. Emmanuel Villakoski has written a new book, "Earth in Upheaval". In this book he tells about the bones of whales that have been found four hundred and forty feet above sea level north of Lake Ontario. A skeleton of another whale was discovered in Vermont more than five hundred feet above sea level and still another in Montreal, Quebec area about six hundred feet above sea level.

Taken from a study in Genesis by Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel.

So we have a concentrated systematic non scientific method working to hide evidences - empirical scientific evidences - from the public in order to support an imagined theory which has no empirical science behind it. Macro evolution has never happened.

Later in Germany, a man called Hitler would find scientific reasoning in his extermination of the Jews. Hitler considered Jews the least evolved of the human race.

We see here the true meaning of how the environment influences the creatures that are in its habitat ... from the lies being espoused as truth by scientist - to Hitler's concepts, the true meaning of evolution was maturing into a beast with dreadful features.

Hitler's regime went as far as to use the hair from its dead victims for pillow fill. They skinned their dead bodies and used the skin of the lessor evolved people to create the fabric of lamp shades. He found good use for the "un-favored races" - less evolved.

I say this coldly but if evolution were really true, it should not bother you at all and perhaps you would have clothing composed of human parts. But thank God, this is not the case.

Dr. David DeWitt taught a class on "Research Ethics" at a state university. These students were PHD candidates and medical doctors. He talked with his students about animals and people and how they are used in research. A student who is from an evolutionary belief system states;
"I would like to say that humans should be treated differently, but I do not have a framework (A belief system in place) or a bases for why they should."
The evolutionary model puts animals and people in the same genetic mold and some races are more favored than others. Isn't this convenient for thieves, murders, and dictators!

The Bible states
Jesus Christ teaches us ...

Matt 5:21-22
21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder,* and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.'

22 But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother,'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says,'You fool!' shall be in danger of hell fire.

Luke 6:31-34
31 And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.

32 "But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.

33 And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.

34 And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back.

Luke 6:37
37 "Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

"Kill or be killed"
"Survival of the Fittest" is the motto of Darwinian Evolution.
So this is how we supposedly have come about - by killing to survive.
And if we kill our neighbor, it's just evolution taking its course while we evolve into better beings.

A friend of Dr. David DeWitt came from China to the United States. Later she became a Christian and had become excited about the Chinese word for "ship" (large boat) which is composed of characters that mean "vessel and eight people." It does not make sense that eight people would need a ship until you know of the story of Noah's flood. This women was reading the story of Noah when she had come to the realization that there were 8 people in the Noah's large boat.
Dr. David DeWitt states, "The ancient Chinese people had the knowledge of God with them but it had been lost."
Scholars believe that Job, there's a Bible book named after him, was from the China - he was from the "East."
Dr. David DeWitt
Image of God or Planet of the Apes DVD

With Darwinian thought reigning supreme in our culture and a system of indoctrination into this belief system being enforced at all the educational institutions, one will find students ridiculing others as less than themselves and worthy of death. The Columbine High School shootings are an example and there have been several attempts to recreate this horror in other schools.

It is easy to argue that the mind of crazed students cannot be blamed on evolution. I would argue this issue since Christianity, which is undermined by the ideology of evolution, teaches students values vastly different than the "survival of the fittest" motto.

Rachel Scott, one of the victims at Columbine, went about being a roll model of a good Samaritan, She spent time with handicapped students and befriended all who would allow her to do so. She exemplified what a Christian should be. Most startling is that this young girl was shot after responding to the murderer, who had a gun pointed at her head at point blank range, with a resounding "Yes" to the question "do you believe in God."

One student followed the precepts of her faith, while the other complied with his. You may argue that this circumstance is rare and extreme, but the underlying philosophy only agreed with this disturbed child's views.

Hitler's EducationPerhaps this is why we should tell the truthHitler's EducationHitler's Education
Although Hitler disagreed with "traditional religion," as he called it, he was deeply entrenched into cultic practices. One could actually be baptized into Nazism.
By propaganda and deception: Hitler presenting himself as a Christian. It would be comical if not so tragic - a photo of Hitler with a cross appearing above his head while leaving a church was circulated to win support during his early years.

 The Dangers of Evolution DVD 5   Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation DVDs

In the words of Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist:

"The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consistently sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution." "THE FACE THAT DEMONSTRATES THE FARCE OF EVOLUTION."
pp 28.

The students who went on a murderous rampage chose Hitler's birthday for their occasion. One of the boys quoted some concepts of evolutionary theory regarding one of the students he planned to kill. Another wore a shirt with the statement, "Natural Selection," printed upon it. Unfortunately, his twisted mind only found what our society classifies as science for his premise.

Might have the premise been, "Thou shall not kill," made a difference in this child's upbringing? Could the idea of a loving father who would die in his place soften his pain and ultimate tragedy ... perhaps so. Rachel believed this premise and she was willing do die for her belief. Evolution would classify her as the weakest link. But I think you would agree she was the stronger.

  Jeremiah speaks to us of God's love

Jeremiah 31:3
3 The Lord appeared to us in the past, saying: "I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness.

Evolution and Morality

Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

Let us look at another Christian who lived her life in accordance with Christianity's teachings.

Corrie Ten Boom was a women living in Amsterdam just before the Nazi invasion. She saw the Nazis rounding up Jews. Her Christian instincts prompted Corrie to protect them. Eventually she was found out as she was betrayed by one of her own countrymen.

Corrie and her sister were taken away to a concentration camp where they faced dire circumstances. Let's look at Corrie's own words.
"Our entire possessions consisted of a tin plate, a tin pot, and a wooden spoon - virtually nothing else, not even a hair pin, wash cloth, sewing kit or anything else... In very short time I was covered from head to toe with large, festering wounds that were caused by filth, dog bites ...."
Quoted from 'Out of the Whirlwind' by Mark A. Tabb. pp 182: Quoting from Carole C. Carlson, Corrie Ten Boom, Her Life, Her Faith: A Biography 107-108
Corrie tells us if any of the women collapsed due to the harsh conditions, they were beaten with clubs and sent off to be killed. Personally hearing stories of how she ministered comfort to the Jewish women in this camp at risk of her own life speaks to us of God's love for all of us and how He sent His son to die in our place on a cross.

Corrie wanted to live out her life in accordance with scripture. Not just because it is a nice philosophy, but because she knew who God is due to His love dwelling within a person who has accepted Christ as their Lord and Savior. This is something the boys who went on a killing spree, which we just read about, did not understand. Even if they had - on a surface level - the understand of what true Christianity teaches, they might have not carried out their horrific deeds.  But it takes more than a surface understanding of Christianity to follow Christ.  Much more.  To put yourself on a cross as Corrie did requires a true relationship with God.

Corrie found her dead sister by wading through piles of corpses in a shower room.

Corrie was confronted by the person who betrayed her and her sister, which lead to the sister's death, and had forgiven him his betrayal. This is done with Christ indwelling the believer. This type of thing is not accomplished by good philosophy!

We know having a banner that says 'Christian' is no guarantee that one will behave in any like manner. But we know from scripture Christ took all this upon Himself. He forgives sin by taking it upon Himself ... He became sin who knew no sin and died the penalty of death for our sake as we accept Him as The (our) Sacrificial Lamb.

While Nazis found resolve in their behavior in evolutionary theory, Corrie tells of her resolve in the Bible while she and her sister sat in a Nazi concentration camp.

"As the rest of the world grew stranger, one thing grew increasingly clear.
And that was the reason the two of us were here ...
... Our Bible was an ever-widening circle of of help and hope ...
... The blacker the night around us grew, the brighter and
truer and more beautiful burned the Word of God."

Quoted from 'Out of the Whirlwind' by Mark A. Tabb. pp 183: Quoting, The Hiding Place by Corrie Ten Boom with John and Elizabeth Sherrill 179.
This is the testimony of those who know Christ as their Lord and Savior. In the midst of all the insanity of Hitler's regime, there is peace in the world's worst nightmare. How does this take place? It is through Christ ... through Messiah. Jesus says in John's Gospel,

John 14:27
27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

If evolution teaches survival of the fittest, why did Corrie do what she did? Why were the Nazis charged with war crimes if they were just following a natural biological function? Evolution does not supply an answer because it cannot.

The Supreme Court

Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

Our philosophical beliefs on abortion are based on Darwinism. Falsified schematics of what takes place in a mother's womb are in view as prominent scientific evidence that a fetus is an animal as it evolves into a human during the pregnancy period. These lies presented as support for evolution have been disproved, but the Supreme Court of the United States based a major court battle's decision on this drawing decades after they were known to be false. Scientist's at times lie to the public outright by claiming the concept presented as science fact that has no factual base at all. This is not science but persuasion of beliefs and ideologies. Something I do when I talk about my faith as a Christian without the lying part.

I am not making an argument against or for abortion here. I want to show people that the highest court system of the most powerful nation on earth based a major decision on false evidence and have betrayed the public trust in doing so.

Are the courts to be blamed? Is it science that is at fault in lying to the public? Or, is this the result of an ideology that has such a blind following that no questions can be asked simply due to the brain - washing effect and indoctrination of people starting at kindergarten level.

If the Supreme Court judges of the United States can be fooled,
what chances do little children have?
Prophecy Today Ministries

Jeremiah 22:3
3 This is what the LORD says:
Do what is just and right.
Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed.
Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow,
and do not shed innocent blood in this place.

Abortion Alternatives - Assistance

Are you influenced, as a women, that what is in your womb during pregnancy is just some lump of flesh or a frog, fish, or pig as is illustrated to students?

Is it your "right" that people want you to believe in? Can there be other motives behind abortion that Darwinism has played such a large roll in and has people so fervent and fighting? There have been over 50,000,000 (50 million) abortions in the United states.

In the 1960s, the concept of the thing in your womb being some kind of animal was pronounced over all the media of the day as factual and the reason for the Supreme Court's Decision. There are alternatives to abortion a women may want to seek and counseling from Christian organizations if you are troubled about an abortion.

I do not really want to criticize scientist so harshly. We all want to believe in what we have come to know as being true. Honestly, there have been people under the Christian banner that acted outrageously throughout history. These individuals were in contrast to what the Bible teaches. Those who followed Darwinism do not disagree with what this concept teaches. On the contrary, the dictators of this world use Darwinian thought to justify their carnage.

Darwin's ideology purposed the extermination of the lesser - "evolved people" by default naturalistic laws man and nature cannot resist. And this is a thought that should frighten everyone: murderous dictators, can envision themselves following natures path and not have any remorse in their actions. They can pacify their conscience with Darwin's laws of survival of the fittest.

There is a monument in Elberton Georgia with statements of how our world needs to be run. Dr. Kent Hovind calls them the 10 commandments of our era. They are written in stone and in 12 languages and the first one states the earth's population should be "maintained" to no more then five hundred million. This is less than one-sixth the earth's current population. I wonder how this number can be managed?

There have been those in the past that did not see the idea of the "survival of the fittest" as being absurd. Evolution became the skeleton for the meat and tissue of some of the world's greatest atrocities of known history. The root, whose fruit is slavery and genocide, can be discovered in evolution's tree of life. It is the foundation for murder and it gives death, and those who encourage it, a foundation to stand on and salute while they carry out their endeavors.
Karl Marx, the father of communism, saw in Darwinism the scientific and sociological support for an economic experiment that eclipsed even the carnage of Hitler's Germany. His hatred of Christ and Christianity led to the mass murder of multiplied millions worldwide. Karl Marx so revered Darwin that his desire was to dedicate a portion of Das Kapital to him. "THE FACE THAT DEMONSTRATES THE FARCE OF EVOLUTION."
pp 28.

Man now has his reason for destroying others. It is part of natural selection since man himself is a product of chances - his actions are not held accountable to a God of morals. While one of the Ten Commandments states,

"Thou shalt not kill."

Evolution demands survival of the fittest and this is natural so accept it even if the fittest are armed with rifles and the lesser have stone tools. The so-called highly evolved men became no more than rabid animals forced to fight in a pit of false ideologies killing without conscience and without any need for survival. Literally, by Darwin's philosophy, man is no more than some kind of animal.

There was a time when men feared God, even if they really did not believe too strongly whether there was one or not. In a nation where Judaeo-Christian beliefs are strong, there is a moral code to live by. The foundation was there for a moral right and wrong preset regardless of how rebellious people may be.

In Darwin's theory, the preset is, "There is no God," you are a product of chance you can decide what is right and wrong, to the extent of genocide according to documented history of our past.

To be continued

Chance or Design

Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

It has been said that the complexity of a single cell drafts all the networks of electrical wiring, pipes, roads, traffic lights, telecommunications, and all that goes into making New York City due to the DNA in the living organism.

Noting that DNA is coded information that gives specific instructions on how to build proteins, one must consider how the instructions were written out. Coded information speaks of design. And this is what DNA contains - coded information that forms the building blocks of living organisms. Anything that is alive must be given its life. It cannot create itself. Setting aside 'chance' - chance cannot create nor give life. Chance is a mathematical term and cannot create. We use to term in place of God whom can create and is called the Creator. But let us look into what mathematics has to say about Darwinian thought and its blind randomness.

We see the cell’s existence cannot be attributed to randomness as the probabilities surpass a number that would allow for this to happen. Statisticians tell us that any number of chances up to and exceeding 1050, though the number exists, would never happen in reality.

Sir Fred Hoyle created a hypothetical 'simple' cell to demonstrate what odds are involved in a single cell organism to come into being by blind random chances. His cell is far simpler than a real one due to the complexity of an actual living cell is far too complex to numerate. He found his hypothetical cell would need 1 in 1057,800 chances for its existence to be. This is too great a number for us to comprehend.

One billion is 10 to the 9th power or 109 which is a 1 followed by 9 zeros.

The power of 57,800 is a 1 followed by 57,800 zeros! If we need 9 zeros for a billion which is too great a number to fathom as it is, what constitutes a 1 followed by 57,800?

How many atoms are there in the universe? One estimate is 1080 or a 1 followed by 80 zeros.

A school teacher asked her students how long would it take a person to count to 1 million 106 (1,000,000). The answer is 12 twenty four hour days. That is 288 hours of counting.

To count to 1 billion,109 (1,000,000,000) it would take you 32 Years or 280,506 hours.

I placed these illustrations to help our minds come to grips with the idea of how completely impossible it is for blind probabilities to place a single cell organism upon the earth that is much simpler than any real living single cell being.

Now one must suppose besides having all things in order for a cell to be, where did its life come from? When did all the parts fit together just right so that our first living being on earth came into existence?

So we see at the starting point, in our simple cell, the complexity is far too great to attribute a random probability to life’s very start where Darwinian thought says it began by accident - blind probabilities.

Sir Fred Hoyle was an English astronomer and mathematician noted primarily for his contribution to the theory of stellar nucleosynthesis and his often controversial stance on other cosmological and scientific matters.

The human body contains 6 x 1013 cells (600,000,000,000,000 = 600 trillion cells). If you were to stretch out the human DNA, it would be 1.2 x 1014 meters (4.6 light days, which is 73,923,840,000 miles. That is over 73.9 billion miles or 119,232,000,000, [119.232 billion].) kilometers long.

Each DNA chain is composed of links that are so small one of the most powerful microscopes ever invented is needed in order to see one. The links are precisely matched individually as to connect only to the proper matching individual link. This holds true for each link for the entire length (73.9 billion miles) of the chain.

If the data within the DNA of a human being were printed into books, it would fill the Grand Canyon from beginning to end -- top to bottom - 78 TIMES OVER!
  Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation DVDs

How are your random chances working out today? Do you believe math stands a chance in producing a human being as the proponents of evolution must state.

Let us look at an expert's opinion on how complicated it is for statement consisting of a few words to be produced by random chances.

Please note: This scenario is many more times complex than what is about to be presented to you below. Although a simplified problem is presented for us, it staggers anyone's imagination to concede the figures given. After we look at the example, I will explain why it is infinitely more difficult to produce our simple four-word sentence illustrated below.

Dr. James Coppadge, an expert in the science of statistical probability, states the complications in producing the sentence

    "The theory of evolution,"

by chance (by mathematical probability) is so complex in and of itself that it can never happen.

The phrase "The theory of evolution," contains 23 ordered letters and spaces. Thus, we need to randomly pick in an ordered sequence twenty-three specific objects out of a set of twenty-six letters of the alphabet and one "space." That means for the first letter "t" in our phase there is a 1 in 27 chance of drawing it. Same with all the other letters in our phrase - each has a 1 in 27 chance of being drawn at any given time. But since we need the letters and the spaces to come in a sequential order, we must multiply their separate probabilities. since there are twenty-three letters and spaces to pick, and each has an individual probability of 1 in 27, we must multiply 27 by itself 23 times (i.e. 2723). This means we would expect to succeed in spelling our phrase by chance only one in over eight hundred million trillion trillion trillion draws.

In several other words .., it would take
"eight hundred thousand x thousand x
million x million x million x million x million x million"
tries to get one correct!

If you were to use a super computer to draw 1,000,000,000 (one billion) tries per second, it would take 26 times 100 trillion years (26,000,000,000,000,000 years) to produce one correctly spelled out phrase (composed of four-words). (Dr. Coppadge does not take into consideration capitalization or punctuation.)

Taken from the "Notes" section of Hank Hanegraaff's book,
pp 187.

Now, let us look at why the probability is far beyond this figure in producing our sentence.

Our example by Dr. Coppadge does not take into effect that the typewriter, a way to manufacture the print and the printing materials, ink and paper, are all already there. Neither is the amount of energy required to do the work to produce our sentence considered and how it is focused specifically at the task at hand.

If all the apparatus were in place - the typewriter (one that never brakes down and types randomly by automation - this requires intelligence), tons of printing paper, and tons of ink that inexhaustibly feeds the typewriter automatically, we have a setup for our hypothetical example. Coppadge does not consider upper case letters or punctuation for simplicity sake. The point is made well enough as is.

The most important aspect is still of consideration. The DNA is a living mechanism. The coded (lettered) instructions are upon living material. How much more complex is this living material when compared to our paper? Again, how complicated is our "ink" being itself a living entity that is programmed, and again the typewriter is composed of more code itself as it has intelligence to produce a code in its sequential and perfect order over what is an inconceivable amount of "pages" as well as not to type illegal letters?

Please remember, our example was for a one four-word sentence composed of 23 letters. The code of the human DNA, as mentioned previously, would fill the Grand Canyon for its entirety - 78 TIMES with books! What probability would be needed to come up with the proper sequence of an innumerable amount of coded pages based on the living properties just considered?

These complications prove how inconceivable it is for probability being responsible for our creation.

Life cannot exist due to a
random role of the dice.
There has to be a Creator - an Intelligent Designer.

DNA, the code itself, is a separate entity than the "ink" in our example. This code is a specific set of instructions. These instructions have to be written before the entity is formed. It is basically the instructions specifying what the entity is to be. Just as if a writer composes a book based on what the author wants to tell others, the DNA has forethought and intelligence.

The Reductionist suggests that life evolved from a single gene and grew into forms that are more complicated. (This contradicts the law of "cause and effect" and entropy - both are universal laws of thermodynamics.) Basically, the idea of gene selection states that the first genes became more diversified by natural selection and continued 'uphill' till cells evolved and cells became multi-celled creatures. Once you realize how complex a single gene is, not alone the complexity of a single cell, this sounds more like science fiction, and the idea would make an excellent sci-fi theme. Even if it were possible for genes to magically appear from soup, someone had to write the instructions specifying what the gene itself would contain and additional instructions based on intelligence would have to be added in order for our gene to start on its journey.

Random selection cannot produce specific instructions. If it were to do so, as some have supposed to their readers, it would be due to the intelligence doing the selecting not blind randomness. Even if you want to add an intelligent selector, randomness is what evolution is based on, you cannot create a new form ... a new species of creature unless you really want to go into some sci-fi adventure based on fiction and not science.

To imagine the gene as if it could do things like dictate its survival, what type of form it should have, and then create the ability to reproduce is beyond any scientific reasoning. Try to imagine a machine mechanic choosing tools and dies to create a specific item in a shop where all the tools have been created along with the shop - would not this suggest an intelligent designer? However, we must give our mechanic the ability to produce a machine that can create life and that life must be able to reproduce itself and fend off hostility, and our mechanic has to have all of these abilities as well or the whole mechanism will come to a halt. Scientist use this reasoning and forget themselves they are describing intelligent design and so do their readers. This is why scientist and the common people are misled into thinking evolution is possible. Micro evolution is true. (See the link below.)

Dr. Kent Hovind suggest we do not call micro evolution - "evolution" due to the confusion this title creates. I agree with Mr. Hovind and believe this is why scientist and students are misled.) Micro is a minimal change such as different types of the same species as we see in different types of dogs.

If a DNA mutates (a mutation), the creature is more susceptible to disease. There is no such thing as a healthy mutation that adapts to its environment and continues mutating into a NEW species. It never has existed and will not ever.

There is such a thing as Micro Evolution5 (a slight variation in one species such turtles being of similar species but a different color. Some species of horse may be swifter, larger, and so on), but never has an animal change from one species into another due to mutation regardless of how many years you allocate to the process in order to validate the idea.

This would require "new information" ... new coded instructions to the extent that would "CREATE" a new species. This is impossible. A random selection, the so-called process of evolution, does not create new species.
5 This links should open in a new window leaving open in the original window. if not, use your browser's back button to access the site again.

It has been said, "if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince, we have a fairy tail. If you kiss a frog and wait a billion years for it to turn into a man, we have Evolutionary Theory (science)."
Dr. James Kennedy

Let's take a look at one of the components of blood. Hemoglobin. We have some idea of how complex the DNA code is from the discussion above, but what kind of probabilities are there in the making of hemoglobin?
Hemoglobin is composed of approximately 20 amino acids which are in succession and repeated several times each in a special sequence in order for it not to be poisonous. The total successive number is 574 amino acids 'long.' Glycine is used 36 times for instance. The total number for our 20 some odd number of amino acids is 574. What are the chances that something could go wrong?. The use of each amino acid must be in a proper position in our chemical composition of hemoglobin and the use of each one must be the correct number of times. This is called 'specificity' and there is a mathematical formula that tells us how precise the manufacturing of hemoglobin, in our example, has to be.
Earlier we seen numbers like 2723, which equals an impossible number to grasp - over eight hundred million trillion trillion trillion. What is the number of things that can go wrong in the making of hemoglobin? The number is 10650.
In other words, out of 10650, you have '1' (11) chance in getting a proper sequence without dying. It is a matter of life and death. It is done correctly, for those of us that are here, 10650 times for each molecule of hemoglobin.

I think you should thank God because you would not stand a 'chance!'

There is a number that mathematicians use regarding probabilities. Any number requiring 1050 is absurd or impossible in statistical occurrences by random chance. (Borel's Law.)
Just to give some perspective on these numbers, if you accept the multibillion year age of the earth, there are 1018 seconds in the history of the universe.
Other examples:

Atoms in the galaxy 1066
Subatomic particles in the galaxy 1080

The point being made here is that 'life' is by deliberate design and not randomness. Science does not allow such numbers to work out by chance. It is by intelligent design that mankind exist. We only looked at one variable out of so many that goes into making a human being.  We also left out the complications of the DNA manufacturing process that is not left to randomness as well.  Just to get to our aminos is an impossibility when it comes to statistics!

Dr. Chuck Missler, Beyond Coincidence DVD "Beyond Coincidence DVD."

See further evidence on God's existence in the design of living organisms in the eight minute discussion below.

One question about life that we may all have, "is there more?" Is there more than being born, living, and then eventually dying? Are we the product of random chances that created a one cell animal, and the product of a continual 'lucky roll of the dice' that spawned into mankind? Science states this is impossible.

So, is there more to the love I have felt, the anger, the joy and sadness than a mixture of enzymes and chemicals that were mixed together by random chances? Can all life on earth be a lucky role of the dice? What do you believe?

Or did mother nature pick and chose (as she is depicted by scientific documentaries to do) and play the role of an intelligent designer, while some scientist say it's evolution and not a "designer" that is responsible for life on earth.

Did mother nature have me in "mind?"

Noble Prize winning scientist have stated that not even a single living cell can come into being. This is completely absurd and impossible, not alone a complex entity with millions or billions of cells.

Within the living cell are complex inter activities - machinery designed by coded instruction of the DNA - that rival any of man's achievements in science. Now imagine how could all of the natural world's living entities interact with other living organisms perfectly in synchronization. How could anyone believe that this was designed by unaided - random mathematical probability? This cannot be the case.

Can mathematical probability create "life" and
"determine" its "survival?"

Let me give you one example of a relationship between a bug so small you could hardly see it, a moth's ear, and a bat. The insect lives in the ear of a moth. The moth has a special ability to detect bat sonar and automatically dives down when a bat gets too close. The insects seem to know this and do not live in both of the moth's ears giving the moth a better chance of survival, which in turn guarantees the insect's survival as well. These insects live out their lives in one ear on each moth. Needless to say, scientists have said evolution has done this in their misguided observation.

Science says not even one cell in the bug could appear on its own not alone the bug. Now consider how complex the moth must be compared to the bug that is so small it could live in the moth's ear, and, once again, the bat and its ability to use sonar. Was the sonar developed due to mathematical chances and the surrounding environment? How did the moth learn to adapt to the bat's sonar? How many times - 'chances' of bat sonar bouncing of the moth before the moth grew wise and installed anti sonar weaponry? When did mother nature say enough is enough and give the moth the ability to survive? How did mother nature come to a conclusion - as she is animated in natural documentaries, or what mathematical probability is needed so only bugs that would not completely deafen the moth survive. Was there a coded instruction in the DNA that eventually survived in uneaten bugs that dictated the bugs survival? Could there have been a gene in the moth that says, "let's live out our lives in one ear of this fat juicy moth so she can get away from the bat's sonar?" This is all absurd. Believing the DNA code existed by probability is completely ridiculous.

This is what the evolutionist tell us in different words and I am sure they do not realize. It seems to flow so smoothly and naturally that you can visualize this taking place. This is why good scientist with good intentions tell us evolution is true and a fact. It just seems to make sense until you take into account how complex this really is. If you are trained in the complexities involved, a separate science altogether, you cannot believe that this is the case.

6 "Biologists are simply naive when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants."

7 "Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

6 Professor Whitten (Professor of Genetics, University of Melbourne, Australia), 1980 Assembly Week address.
7 Dr. T. N. Tahmisian, Physiologist, Atomic Energy Commission. As quoted in: Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes, 3D Enterprises Limited, 1983, title page

I hope no one is discouraged from their pursuit of the Sciences by this discourse. We need more scientists in every endeavor imaginable. I want to point out how easily people, regardless of their level of education, can follow a belief system that is not true without realizing how far they have gone into the belief or how foolish the idea is. Since micro evolution is true, one can very easily believe the misguided concepts of evolution (and out right lies in some instances).

The surrounding "environment(s)" only make things worse for evolution. The fact that living entities have symbiotic relationships with the world around them, coexistence, proves that evolution is false. Instead, the public have been brainwashed into thinking that math is our creator and designer. When we add variables of complexity in the interactivity of the other living beings you need more faith to believe in evolution than in God ... much more faith indeed.

Could evolution be a theistic ideology
with no real scientific basis?

Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it."

H.S. Lipson, FRS (Professor of Physics, University of Manchester, UK), 'A physicist looks at evolution'. Physics Bulletin, vol. 31, 1980, p. 138.

Darwinian Evolution is more of a religion today in our modern understanding of science than a theory. We are seeing scientist create false elaborations claiming they are making discoveries. This is a crime outright. You would think that the museums of natural history would take down the false displays,but they do not. Evolution has a cultic following - a type of religion of the humanist. Science disproves Darwinian - macro evolution. There is a battle for how society views the world and it's the religion of our governing society today that runs the educational systems and keeps society under this belief. This is why truth is in exclusion at our universities today. Public education in America is teaching students a theistic ideology that is false ... a cult. This cult has the public hostage in its understanding of what real science is. Let us consider the following in order to ponder the concept of Macro evolution as being false.

A good analogy of the problem Darwinism has created is evidenced by looking at a time in history when men believed the earth was flat. Scientist and common people argued for a flat world. It was what had to be true because this is what everyone grew up believing and was told to be true. Anyone in our common era would laugh at the argument but this was the case. One could imagine a scientist and his colleagues arguing the matter, and teachers loosing their positions for telling their students the earth were round.

If you find yourself asking the question, "How can a person say such a thing? Evolution is science and religion is a fabrication of man. Now that man has evolved to his present state, we can examine the natural world and see for ourselves with logic and deduction the truth underlying the unexplainable aspects of our world, and concepts that have no scientific bases can be dismissed from the processes of inquire."

Will you look at evidence that claims evolution is a fabrication in light of the modern advances of science? Would you be brave enough to face a world that believes evolution is true even if you start to realize it is false? Can you feel an uneasy tension in your stomach as you conceptualize the aspect of disbelieving what you have learned and accepted as being true?

These are the implications one must face before ever making a decision to look at the evidence. The decision is subliminally made in some instances due to ridicule and offense one may face light of the commonly accepted belief. Some would have to deal with students, coworker and an employer who follow Darwinism if they were to make their new belief known to others.

"The argument is not for what is true or false, but what one believes is true or false and what others may say or think of an individual who has a concept that is not kosher in humanistic philosophy."

Even if what is conceptually true is established to be false, it is held as being true because the mind of the believer has committed 'their self' to the idea. Evolution is an idea and not a scientifically proven concept. There is no evidence for Darwinism. In the contrary, there is evidence that refutes Darwinism throughout the world and the universe itself. However, anyone, Christian and atheist alike, will find perceiving evolution as false will have to fight with what their mind has been programmed to believe and fear what others might think of them as well.

How would you feel if you loved science and had studied independently in addition to a normal schooling schedule, had a deep hunger for logical reasoning and truth and found that there are scientist with greater educational accomplishments than you who were lying to you and everyone in the scientific community as well as to the general public? You would be shocked and taken back? You would have to question whether such statements could ever be true. A journey up a hill with the wind blowing against you is what you would face in trying to discern if such a circumstance is possible. It would be like swimming against a current. A very difficult task to undertake indeed, but this is what is required when trained men of science are unprofessional and dishonest.

This is what people go through when the come out of a cult. They need to be gently dealt with by people who are trained due to the reasoning of what is true and what is false. I mention this to prove to you that it is much easier to accept the idea that evolutionists are truth seekers and we cannot ever question them. Besides, we may believe, they went to universities where fairness in expression and ideas are prominent and the search for truth is unbiased. How nice that would be and how nice it would be when in comes to simple things like lying outright are never done.

As we can see, there is more to following the concept of evolution than science itself. Fairness in teaching of the origin of life does not tolerate intelligent design while design is plane to see everywhere you look in nature.

One mathematician stated the fact that there are pure mathematical properties we can observe in our world and the universe - speaks in and of itself that there had to be a master mathematician. Design is everywhere you look in our Cosmos.

Evolution is holy ground for some scientist and only those who are robed in the doctrine of the faith can enter into the temple of reason and discussion while others are considered to be infidels. If a teacher expresses sound scientific reasoning to a student which may interfere with the doctrine of evolution, that individual is warned of the pending doom due to leaving the faith or is excommunicated from the university or high school immediately.

Our tax dollars are paying teachers to brainwash our children into thinking the human race came from apes. First, the Scientist and teachers have to realize that they have been lied to and the ones who are lying need to be fired from their positions.

Those who need an explanation to specifically replace God when it comes to the question, "where does life come from," based on their biases and not on science will not stop lying and deceiving themselves and others as well.

Can you see a need for a moral code? Isn't there supposed to be one in the fine art of science?

Please do not miss-understand the intention here. I know science is important and we need good scientist and doctors in every field of science! I love science myself and would never want to downgrade it or its importance. Being lied to by those you entrust is really bothersome - especially by those in the field of science and education.

Those who are trained as scientist should not hide facts or destroy them when the facts disagree with a theory. Neither should the pursuit of science be placed under the opaque lens of evolution and forced to convert - "evolve" into what is to be expected as oppose to true discovery.

I was taken back for several weeks when the thought of scientists lying to the public was first brought to my mind. I was really shocked as a person fond of science. It was a kind of holy grail (the search for truth through logical deductions and honest representation) of humanity for me and I have to say it still is, but I know man is bent by the evil of this world due to the fallen nature of humanity.

Lying is due to the fall and is inherent in all humans whether you are Christian, Atheist, or of any other theistic belief. We seem to really be sheep especially in the light of how easily we can all be deceived as we are by Darwinian Evolution.

We are given drawings of what is supposed to be a human - like creature that is part ape and are told this is man's ancestor while the only fossil evidence found was a tooth.

This is "Nebraska Man," we are told. Not only is the elaboration completely false, (nothing else was found but the tooth, and even if primitive tools were found along with a real tooth - what ever that might be, it still would be a fancied imagined tale,) the tooth was not even close to being human. It was a pigs tooth.

So, from a pigs tooth we have a community of fake ape men and women living in Nebraska.

This is what our tax dollars are paying for and we are forced in the United States of America to tell our children this is science and factual. The law requires that evolution is science and that this is what ought to be taught in school and not bias religious ideologies.

You have to wonder where the bias is and why it is there in the first place.

Allow me brake down the above story of Nebraska Man into a list (create an elaboration on facts) so it is easier to see how bias some evolutionist are as opposed to being "noble" scientist whom the public can trust.

Apes probably do not lie unless devious scientist train them to do so.


This is how cults work, ladies and gentlemen, not those entrusted as scientist whom you would expect some character of nobility.

I have created an elaboration on facts so your mind can realize how cults work and how powerful they are in transforming your belief system.

It would probably take years of undoing the damage of lies that so called scientist have portrayed on the public. This holds true whether you are secular or Christian.

I have to say it is the fear of the true God - the God of the Bible that men need to create an imaginary god ... evolution. It has been stated the man creates god out of fear and ignorance, But as you are seeing, this is what evolution is. It is to replace a God who demands morals and who hold us accountable.

One need not fear the God of the Bible. Christian know this God to be so loving that He gave His only Son to die for your sins so that you do not have to worry about spending eternity in hell due to your natural weaknesses.

Geological Column:

Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation DVDs

James Hutton 1727 - 1796:

James Hutton stated the earth to be older then what people believed, moreover, he concluded the earth's age to be millions of years old. He has been called the father of modern geology. His book, "The Theory of the Earth" expounded on an old earth concept.

During the seventeen hundreds, most people believed the Bible or were strongly influenced by Christianity. People believed the world was six thousand years old. This was the common teaching of the day.

There were several revolutions going on during this era as well, which did not favor some biblical teaching due to statements found in the Bible such as, "honor the king."(1 Peter 2:17) People interpreted this as being an obstacle to their objectives. This era was known as "The Age of Anti-Monarchy."

The Age of Anti-Monarchy
American Revolution: 1776 Polish Revolution 1831
French Revolution 1789 Italian Revolution 1848
Spanish Revolution 1823 German Revolution 1848

James Hutton suggested the concept of uniformitarianism. This idea suggest (presumes) that the present conditions on earth always existed as they are perceived currently and erosion takes place slowly. This laid the groundwork for the idea of "gradual change," a concept that came to bear on Darwinian Evolution (1859).

Another individual, "Charles Lyell" came along and wrote a book called, "The Principles of Geology."

Charles Lyell stated he wanted to "free the sciences from Moses." He also had a hatred for the Bible and his writing indicated his bias. Lyell is mostly accountable for the invention of the geological column.

The column is divided and given names, age, and an index fossil. Remember, Lyell's mission was to divert people from viewing nature in light of the Bible text. His hostility toward Christianity is shown in the book he published as well as letters he wrote to colleagues.

Lyell created these columns based on his prejudice toward the concept of a God created world. Further along on this page you will read comments by scientist who question the columns existence.

Lyell's column is imaginary. Yet, it is taught to students today as factual. To further the folly of lies, ages were determined for each layer in the column by Lyell before there were any of the following dating methods.

Thus, there was no scientific method for knowing what age the fossils were. This proves that the layers were never dated properly if there ever has been such a possibility to do so in the first place. The idea of an old earth was promoted due to religious biases and political agendas.

Carbon dating was invented in 1949

Carbon dating is used 5 or 6 times, in some instances, in order to produce a number that should match the geological column's indication. In other words, numbers are fudged to conform to an ideological concept, "an old earth" that has no bases in scientific facts.
DVD # 7 Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation DVDs

A group of scientist wanted to come up with a formula to see when the earth would reach a state of equilibrium concerning carbon 14 (14C) - when the amount of 14C forming and the amount of 14C decaying would become equal. They estimated it would take 30,000 - years to accomplish this and, by their estimates of an old earth, this happened millions of years ago.

However, scientist found that 14C is forming faster by as much as 37% than what they estimate the decay rate to be.

This proves scientifically the earth to be younger then
30,000 - years old.

What would be the conclusion if you believe the earth to be millions of years old? If our modern dating methods do not work, how can you tell the earth's age? Do you go back to the time when science depended on speculation and agree with Charles Lyell? Would you point out the concept of an old earth as incorrect and say this proves the earth has to be younger then 30,000-years. Or, would you block out the data from your memory and religiously hold to an old earth theology?
Radiocarbon is forming 28-37% faster then it is decaying.
  R.E. Tailor et al., "Major revision in the Pliestocene Age Assignments for North American Human Skeletons by C-14 Accelerator Mass Spectrometer,"American Antiquity, Vol. 50, No. 1 1985 pp. 136 - 140

The geological column was a complete sham. It does not exist.
There was no scientific method available to date fossils, layers, rocks or anything else for that matter.

The geological column was the product of bias and prejudice and not science. Not only were the old age philosophies empty of science, the science developed in more recent times, which are in use to indicate the age of an item, are riddled with flaws. Scientist pick a number to suit the need at the particular instance, which has to conform to a theory - Darwinian Evolution. So, they validate the research as being correct and disregard all other results.

One has to understand here that theories are supposed to be upheld by evidence. You do not disregard evidence in order to keep a theory alive. You do not create false evidences to uphold faltering theories. You do not lie to the public and educate people to believe in an idea that is false unless you want them to have an ideology you personally prefer.

Forcing religious-philosophical ideas in the classroom and not teaching science is what happens when it comes to the facts on Darwinian Evolution.

Biases toward the idea of "a God created world" have turned honest scientific inquiry into a fifty percent crap shoot.

Half of all carbon dating results are disregarded simply because they contradict a theory.

You may not want or care to believe in God, but do you need to create one when it comes to our origins and teach it as science in a classroom?

Has that thought struck you yet? Can you imagine what you have been told as a child - that there was such a thing as this column - and are now finding out it was a complete lie. The "idea" that the earth's age is millions of years old is a biased - philosophical concept, which is faltering under scientific discovery, as it should - as cosmological studies show as well.

If you are a professor teaching the topic, what would you think? No matter whether you care for the Bible or not, you certainly do not want to teach a lie to your students. Nevertheless, what can you possible do? You have to agree to the idea or it may cost you your job and career as an educator.

The numbers indicating the age of the layers within the column were the result of the imaginary processes of an embittered mind.

Truth has no place when bigotry and dishonesty are fossilized into the thinking process of educated men.

There are layers in the earth, but the column indicating animals lived in one layer (time) and not in any of the others is nonsense. Scientist find human remains in layers that are dated (supposedly) 100s of millions of years before man arrived on earth. They also find animals that supposedly have developed into other creatures through natural selection, still alive! This means that the Darwinian evolutionary process is not working if one were to believe in such a fabrication in the first place.

Dr. Kent Hovind states,
"The only place you will find the geological column is in the textbooks. It really does not exist in the natural world. Trilobites are considered "good" index fossils. If you find one in a layer, that layer should be 500 to 600 million years old. The only problem is that a fossilized human footprint has a trilobite imprinted below it. The person wearing a shoe stepped on one and the whole impression fossilized. According to secular reasoning, people did not start wearing shoes until ten thousand years ago."
  Reader's Digest, "Mysteries of the Unexplained" pp 38
trilobites are still alive today and are found in various locations on earth.
Regarding the geological column, A 1939 textbook states, "Unfortunately, no such column exist."
  Earth Science pp 326:
Trilobite eyes have the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature
  Lisa Sawver: Science News Feb 1974 pp 72
The eyes of early trilobites ... have never been exceeded for complexity or acuity ...
  Stephen J. Gould: Natural History Feb 1984 pp 23
  Stephen J. Gould is a famous evolutionist who is not a religious Christian or religious Jew.

How can one of the earliest life forms have the most sophisticated eye lenses? This contradicts the concept of natural selection on the Darwinian level and species evolving into higher life forms.

Scientist use "index fossils" to tell how old the layers are in the geological column and they use the column to tell the age of the fossils. This is circular reasoning.

Strata are dated by the fossils, then the fossils are dated by the strata.

"The intelligent laymen has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks."
[J.E. Rourke, The American Journal of Science 1976, 276:51] .
{Dr. Kent Hovind, DVD on Creation: "Lies in the Textbooks"}

I hope this did not get by you. Let us go over what we have discussed here.

"Radioactive dating would not be possible if the geological column had not been erected first"
  [O'Rourke, J.E. "Pragmatism verses Materialism in Stratigraphy," The American Journal of Science Vol 276 pp 54: January 1976,]
{Dr. Kent Hovind, DVD # 7 "Questions and Answers"}
Niles Eldredge,
one of the most famous evolutionist alive today states,
"Paleontologist cannot operate this way. There is no simple way to look at a fossil and say how old it is unless you know the age of the rocks it comes from. And this posses something of a problem: if we date the rocks by their fossils, how then can we turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"
  Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinism Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium. New York Simon and Shaster: 1985 pp 52.
{Dr. Kent Hovind, DVD # 7 "Questions and Answers"}

The lower leg of a mammoth was dated as being 15,380 years old while its skin was dated as being 21,300 years old.
  Harold E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept, 1949, p 300, {Dr. Kent Hovind, DVD # 7 "Questions and Answers"}
Which number do you think is correct? If one of them is wrong, the other should be correct. How do we know any "one" of the numbers given is correct? There is no real way to tell. Assuming that the lower number is correct, the difference is 5,920 years. That is 2.6 times off the mark. If the greater number is correct, we are off 3.6 times off. These are serious mistakes when it comes to math. The layperson may not see this right away. Imagine saying 2 times 5 = 26 or 36 for that matter. The scale of this mistake can be based on this ratio. Remember this test was done on the same specimen.

Below are a few more errors Dr. Hovind points out to help convince you what you have believed to be scientific facts are fraudulent tales.

In 1963 a living mollusk was tested and found to be 2,300 hundred years old.

In 1970, a statement was made indicating if a carbon 14 dating matches the given theory, we put the data in the main text, if not, we put the finding in a footnote. If it totally contradicts our theory, we disregard the finding.

Basically, this states they pick and choose numbers that fits the imaginary column dated by Charles Lyell and his imagination.

In 1971, a freshly killed seal was found to be 1,300 years old.

In 1984, a living snail is dated as being 27,000 years old.

DVD # 7 Dr. Kent Hovind's Creation DVDs

In 1996 ...

A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronological Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils.
Last spring he was reevaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find:

the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possible no more than 27,000 years - a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans.
{Dr. Kent Hovind, DVD # 7 "Questions and Answers"}
This article is saying that there is a mistake somewhere. There is more than one mistake here.

Half of the dates calculated using carbon 14 are rejected. How do they know the "half" disregarded are incorrect? How do they know the "half" kept are valid?

Half of all test results are being thrown away. Can there be something wrong with this method?

The next time you see a newspaper article proposing some find of antiquity in regards to the age of the earth, will you question its validity? The paper will be reporting the scientist's find, but can you trust what is being said?

It is either heads or tails when it comes to 14C dating. Evolution is the theory, therefore; heads evolution wins; tails evolution wins due to the biases in science. They get rid of all of the other ballets that do not support the theory.

Let us look at how Carbon 14 (14C) Dating works.

These notes directly below were taken from Mike Riddle's DVD "Dating Fossils and Rocks."
Mike Riddle - Speaker and Author

Carbon 14 is an unstable isotope. It decays into Nitrogen 14. The amount of time it take for half a volume measure of 14C to turn into 14N is considered a "half life." That length of time is 5,730 years.

Only organic material can be tested with the 14C dating method. Living organism ingest 14C until they stop living. Thus, the decay and none replenishing of 14C gives us with an idea of the time an organism died. So, after 5,730 years, half the 14C is gone from our specimen.

Two half lifes will give us half of a half which is a quarter of the original 14C level.

14C is constantly being reproduced in our atmosphere, so it is always being replenished. This insures us that we have a certain measure of 14C in our atmosphere we can work with. 14C is ingested by plants and animals as they breath air, drink water, and eat food.

Rocks cannot be dated with the 14C method.


The longer a specimen lies around, the more 14C decays and we find less in the test sample. After 60,000 years, all of the 14C should be gone. So after 60k, we can no longer use 14C testing.

There are two items we need to know in order to use 14C testing.

1: the amount of 14C in the specimen at death
2: the rate of removal of 14C ... this is the half life

We use Carbon 12 which is stable - 12 protons and 12 neutrons. 12C does not change - does not decay

We must assume that the ratio of 12C to 14C has stayed the same throughout history in order for us to use the 14C as a dating method. The ratio is 'one' 12C atom to 'one trillion' 14C in the atmosphere, so as long as a specimen is alive, it will maintain this ratio. Once a thing dies, plant or animal, The ingesting stops and the 14C continues to decay while the stable 12C remains at the same quantity.

The differential in the ratio of 12C and 14C gives us an idea of the age of a specimen as the half life of 14C is known.

Since 14C is decaying constantly, it has to be replenished. Remember 14C is not stable and tends to decay to 14N. It has to be replenished at a rate that will equal the rate of its decay or our ratio will not be 1 to 1,000,000,000,000, (1012) the replenishing and decay rates must reach an equilibrium.

That is to say how long will it take for 14C to build in the atmosphere to a point where it remains constant. Starting with no 14C in the atmosphere in a young earth, it has been estimated it would take 30,000 years for the decay and formation of 14C to become equal.

But the fact is, the 12C is out of sync with 14C - there is no equilibrium. 14C is being created at a great percentage faster than it is decaying. Thus our 1 to 1012 is not a valid ratio. We have no way of knowing how old any creature or plant is due to this discrepancy as far as carbon 14 dating goes.

The founder of 14C dating, Libby Willard, just chalked it up as a mistake in his calculations and left it out of the equation completely. This is a bias move. Science must remain unbiased or it is not science but manipulation of the public and its funds as we pay for the research with our tax dollars.

Mike Riddle - Speaker and Author

As we can see from the slides above, several factors affect Carbon 14 levels. These factors fluctuate throughout the earth's history leaving only speculation to the the ratio of 12C to 14C in the specimens that are tested.

An illustration should help here. Let us say you walked into a room where there are several candles burning. Each one is at a different height but all are made of the same material and are exactly the same. The only observation you can make is that they are at various heights and all immediate factors are similar.

They are different heights so you know they were lit at different times (similar to specimens dying at different periods in history). after calculating the burn rate by observation, you can determine a time when each candle was lit. But, if each candle is a different length to start with (specimens dying at various periods) and each encased in its own air supply exposing the candles to different levels of oxygen (different environmental conditions), you could not determine the time each one was lit unless you knew all the other conditions first and had some previous calculations for these measurements.

This is what happened to our 14C method. The environmental conditions changed and we do not have any method for determining these changes or how they affected the production rate of 14C.

People are so conditioned into believing that evolution is true they cannot see the scientific evidence. Do you still doubt that evolution might not be a valid theory? If you doubt what you are reading, please research where people are not afraid to speak out. Not believing in evolution is akin to blasphemy in religious circles due to the blind following and conditioning we have all received in our process of getting an education.

The amount of Carbon 12 buried within the earth is around 100 times what is presently found in our biosphere. The ratio goes from 1 to 1012 to as high or perhaps higher than 1 to 31 x 1012. That equals to a 3200% differential!

These discrepancies will give the illusion of a much older specimen than what the age of the specimen actually is.

We know that the assumption that the biospheric inventory of 14C has remained constant is NOT TRUE
Elisabeth K. Ralf and Henry M. Michael
"Twenty Five Years of RadioCarbon Dating,"
American Scientist, Sep/Oct 1974
Mike Riddle - Speaker and Author

We know that it takes approximately 60,000 years for 14C to decay to a level of non detection. Thus, any specimen that does not contain 14C should be older than 60,000 years. Coal is made of carbon so it is a non organic specimen we can use 14C dating methods on. it is presumed on old age earth theories that coal takes millions of years to form. We are finding coal with detectable amounts of 14C.

Fossil wood specimens were estimated to be 200 million years old still contain 14C. Nothing over 60 thousand plus years should contain 14C. That wood cannot be that old.
Mike Riddle - Speaker and Author
Why was this wood presumed to be so old in the first place? Whatever else was dated within the area of the fossil wood must not be dated correctly either. We are being mislead and told outright lies in order to support Darwinian evolutionary theory and keep funding of these projects in order.

Newer advanced techniques are placing human fossils in a much earlier position in history. As a matter of fact the findings below are putting these human remains within the Biblical model.

Mike Riddle - Speaker and Author

Potassium Argon

In a "Nature" magazine article, we read about the dating of volcanic ash being approximately 230 million years old. The dating method is Potassium Argon. This method, according to theory, should be excellent for dating volcanic ash due to the "clock" being reset by the intense heat of the volcanic activity. Thus, when this ash forms, it is effectively at zero age on the time scale. The only problem is that human remains were found in the ash and according to evolution, humans could not have been alive 230 million years ago. Can there be something wrong with the dating method? Is the evolutionary theory in question here? Can we save both theory and method by stacking the cards in favor of both? Sure we can, and this is what is done over and over again to salvage a false theory and method that fail continually.

  Nature: April 18, 1970, p 226

The remains looked, and more than probably are, human - not ape-man - "bluff beings" that are fudged into existence by artist. This was not a burial but a body that died in ash way to old to hold such remains according to the geological column.

After the startling find, scientist decided they needed a new number, so they took more samples and came up with a winning ticket of 2.5 to 0.5 million years old.

This number helps keep the false theory of an old earth and the evolutionary process alive in our modern day. However, I am afraid one day we will read of the demise of false scientific practices and philosophies. This shows the whole concept of animals living in certain periods and evolving into others as being a farce. There is no doubt that different animals lived at different times on earth but the concept of evolution has no scientific bases outside of the faltering scientific methods that are in use to prop the faltering concept.

Math and physics is real science. When you use these tools to support a false concept, you have miss calculations and failure after failure.

These sciences are real, but they are being used to beat a dead dog "evolution" back to life. Evolution is the missing link in the fossil record. You can look all you want, you will never find it there.

Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily that erupted in 1964 AD, was dated using potassium argon dating methods was found to be 700,000 years old.

Mt. Etna's 1972 eruption gave an age of 350,000 years.
  Impact # 307, January 1999,

A lava flow from a Hawaiian volcano that erupted in 1801 AD was dated to be 1,600,000 years old.
  Funkhouser and Naughton, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, July 15, 1968, p 4601.

The Mt. Saint Helen eruptions of 1980 was tested and given 5 dates ranging from 350,000 to 2,800,000 years old.

  Impact # 307, January 1999,

Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (A.D. 1959) was dated using potassium argon dating methods which gave an age of 8,500,000 years old.
  Impact #37, January 1999

The hypothesis of potassium argon dating, as Dr. Kent Hovind points out, is
"Tests on samples of known age do not work"
"Samples of unknown age are assumed to work once a number comes up that fits the assumptions."

A zinc and silver vessel was found in solid rock that was dated to be 600,000,000 years old. This date precedes man by hundreds of millions of years according to the dating methods used.

  Reader's Digest, "Mysteries of the Unexplained" pp 46

A hammer was found in 1934 at New London Texas. It was embedded in rock and surrounded by seashells. The seashells were dated to be 400,000,000 years old.

  Carl Baugh Museum
Not only is the dating off, but the technology of the material is far advanced in comparison to what a construction worker can find in a local hardware store in this day and age. A notch was cut into the hammer with a file back in 1934. The area cut has not rusted to this date. It is a type of stainless steal. Scientist speculate the material of the hammer was constructed under a magnetic field several times more powerful than the earth's present one.

The Lobed finned fish is another index fossil. It is said to date the strata from 325 to 410 millions years ago and it is pointed out to students that one can see the lobed fins turning into limbs. This species is prominent in creating the illusion of fish going from water to land and becoming the first land creatures.

The only problem with this lie is that these fish are still alive today. The imagined concept that is perpetuated as truth is nothing but an outright lie. There is no scientific evidence that this ever happened. Even if the fish were extinct, one could argue the point made here very effectively.

Anglers are catching the lobed finned fish today. Someone should tell them they are eating their great ancestor.

What does this do to those who put their faith in the geologic column? Since the fish is still alive today, the following has to be true.

The long lobbed fin fish is still alive today.

Long Lobed Fin Fish

Let us continue to demonstrate what empirical evidence this 'living fossil,' (Whenever you hear the words 'living fossil,' remember what you are about to read.) presents to science, the educational system, and to any person mature enough to come to their own conclusions and not sit by as a helpless child being indoctrinated into philosophical ideas that contradict empirical science!



Scientists also understand the complications of gills turning into lungs ... another magical feat that evolves through indoctrination and brain washing but has no bases in science.

Scientist have stated the language of the cuttlefish, a shell-less mollusk, is advanced beyond that of human beings. Mollusks are considered lower than fish on the evolutionary scale. The cuttlefish communicates by varying its color patterns in rapid succession. If fish are lower than man and mollusk lower than fish, how does this mollusk has such a sophisticated capability?

Science is bending into whatever shape evolutionary philosophy determines as to direct one away from the Bible and its teaching specifically. You have to go back as to why the concept of 'no God' is so appealing and a God who demands morality is so unappealing.

"[I suppose the reason] we all jumped at the Origin [Origin of Species] was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
Sir Julian Huxley
Julian Huxley British biologist (1887 - 1975)

A grandson of T.H. Huxley, Julian Huxley was born in London and graduated in zoology from Oxford University in 1909. He did research on sponges (Porifera) at the Naples Zoological Station (1909–10) before taking up the post of lecturer in biology at Oxford (1910-12). From 1912 until 1916 he worked at the Rice Institute, Houston, Texas, where he met the famous American geneticist Hermann Muller...

T.H. Huxley, ("Darwin's Bulldog")

He was one of the earliest and strongest supporters of Darwinism; his 1860 debate with Bishop Samuel Wilberforce gained widespread attention. In the 1860s Huxley did valuable work in paleontology and classification, especially classification of birds. Later in life he turned to theology; he is said to have coined the word agnostic to describe his views

Read more:

Viewing man as the sole agent of further evolutionary advance on this planet, he caused considerable controversy by advocating the deliberate physical and mental improvement of the human race through eugenics...

Read more:


Nazi human experimentation was a series of medical experiments on large numbers of prisoners by the Nazi German regime in its concentration camps mainly in the early 1940s, during World War II and the Holocaust. Prisoners, mostly Jews, were coerced into participating: they did not willingly volunteer and there was never informed consent. Typically, the experiments resulted in death, disfigurement or permanent disability, and as such can be considered as examples of medical torture. At Auschwitz and other camps, under the direction of Dr. Eduard Wirths, selected inmates were subjected to various hazardous experiments which were supposedly designed to help German military personnel in combat situations, develop new weapons, aid in the recovery of military personnel that had been injured, and to advance the racial ideology backed by the Third Reich.[1] Dr. Aribert Heim conducted similar medical experiments at Mauthausen. Carl Vaernet is known to have conducted experiments on homosexual prisoners in attempts to cure homosexuality. After the war, these crimes were tried at what became known as the Doctors' Trial, and revulsion at the abuses perpetrated led to the development of the Nuremberg Code of medical ethics.

There is no scientific reasoning in any of the examples given, only emotionally biased ones. This is what the driving force of Charles Lyell's effort in promoting the geological column and uniformitarianism. He is quoted that his wishes were to 'rid the sciences of Moses.'

Though the farce of the geological column should immediately open your eyes to these speculations, the truth must be repeated over and over again. Because of the brainwashing every student has to endure in our educational institutions, the truth needs to be expounded upon so it can be perceived. The idea that science has fallen under the jurisdiction of philosophical/religious ownership is frightening when the ideology contradicts the evidences.

Now please understand this. There are credible sciences built around the sophisticated radio carbon dating methods, but they do not work. They cannot because the methods used are built upon lies. There is nothing to find except a theory that is false and scientist who were thought at a young age that it is all true.

Darwinian Evolution is a modern day alchemy and excuse for man's conscience when it comes to his existence and behavior.

Scientist are on a wild goose chase blindly following philosophical concepts of an old earth, and animals evolving into other creatures - while they should be using their abilities to do real research for the insurmountable problems facing mankind today.

So, we have complete science curriculum teaching true science based on what true science cannot achieve. That is - to verify a lie. You cannot make a lie true with sophistication. You need to start all over again. We have our higher math and physics but we are pointing in the wrong direction.

This is what indoctrination into a cultic - philosophical concept will due. It blinds its parishioners and regardless of their intelligence, they cannot see where the fault lies.

You can preach on the complications of radioactive methods in dating specimens of one sort or another, but your results will always be flawed and you will pick a number that suits what we are all suppose to believe. The science and the method is real, but the whole doctrine of the age of the earth based on a geological column is false. Sorry to undermine your faith but the age of enlightenment is here.

This geologist states that the geological column does not exist.

Eighty to eighty five percent of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geological periods appearing in "correct" consecutive order. It becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary - uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geological periods.
  Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist, "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geological Column" CRSQ Vol. 18 No. 1 June 1981, pp 46-71.

Can the layers of fossils suggest there was a calamity, (catastrophism) and all these creatures died around the same time and were laid down by water currents - something the Bible calls the flood?

Remember that uniformitarianism is the teaching that the earth's structures were gradually formed and depleted due to natural causes slowly - not considering calamity like a flood or meteor strike.

Also, remember ...

Now, a fellow comes along and is greatly influenced by the concept of an old earth - its promotion due to a 'politically correct view,' a geological column that science still had no way of verifying, and a biased author - Charles Lyell.

That person name was Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin lived in a very primitive scientific era. Many of the ideas Darwin conceived are just assumptions. Those assumptions are proved incorrect in this day by the scientific method and empirical evidences.

To be continued

Irreducible Form

Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

There is a concept called "irreducible form." This relates to the simplest state an object can be in without it breaking down and be of no use. A mouse trap would be a simple example. If one part is missing of the trap, its function fails. Scientist have fond parts of microscopic life that are of irreducible form. One of them is the Flagellum Motor.

You can watch a 58 minute video discussion below on the Flagellum. One thing that should be brought to mind, if one part of the Flagellum is missing, it will not function. This means it could not evolve. This is what irreducible complexity tells us. It has to be there in its completed from or it has no function. This is evidence of creation and evidence that says evolution is incorrect.

When considering the DNA and the recent discoveries concerning the DNA Structure, Creation is the only explanation.


Here is a 58 minute discussion: 00:58:18.000



Here is a 14 minute discussion: 00:14:55.000



Scientist who study the DNA say attempting to imagine one cell evolving and all its complexities has to render one completely exasperated. It cannot be done.

There has to be a" designer!"

Good men of science tell us of evolution because they were taught it since early childhood. Our minds will tell what we have come to believe is true even if it is not. Only with science can man reason truth but when the corrupt state of man is in the reasoning, our observations and beliefs will be misguided.

During Darwin's days, there was not enough data to tell us evolution was not true. Nonetheless, there were scientist that would not accept the theory in Darwin's time and in this day and age, there are more and more scientist abandoning the concept. I have to say that evolution appeals to man's sinfulness. It is much easier to put away a God who expects us to be moral than for men to reason themselves wrong.

The next time you watch a program on natural history please pay attention and see how the narrator creates an elaboration of what may have happened and hear how they speak as if "this is the way it did happen." It's as if a fairy tale had come true and now they need to convince us of what they want us to believe.

Remember, fossils do not elaborate and if evolution is true, the earth should be filled with fossils of transitional forms. A transitional form is a form of an animal as it is evolving from one form to another. If nature had to pick and chose as scientist tell us, (once again giving nature some intelligent designer abilities) than the mistakes that mother nature made should be everywhere in the fossil record.

The only transitional forms in existence are the faked ones!
This is a science fact!

We read in the book of Jeremiah ...

Jeremiah 29:11-13
11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.

12 Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you.

13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
in Romans
Romans 8:15-16
15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out,"Abba, Father."

16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
and in first John.
1 John 3:1
1 Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.;

These are words to trust and live by. They are recorded for us to let us know that we are loved. Scientists scour the universe looking for intelligent life. Some of them have said that if there is life out there, we can be comforted that we are not alone.

It is a sad thing to realize how foolish we can really be. The preceding verse speak of so much love and the Bible's incredible design shows us a loving Father does exist, yet men seek life elsewhere. They are listening to the faintest hint of life with dishes as large as buildings. I giant ear pointed to the heavens. All one has to do is to look to the scriptures to find out man does not have to be alone. Jesus calls the Holy Spirit the comforter, and He said He would not leave us alone when He would go. He also said if He would not leave, the other would not come referring to the Holy Spirit and His crucifixion.


Top  < < < Links on this page > > >  Previous
Evolution Cosmology Evolution...
God Science Morality
The Courts Chance Deism
Geology Form Entropy

Evolution is contrary to the law of entropy - one of the fundamental laws of the universe.

Imagine your desk after a few days or weeks of use. It becomes a complete mess. Evolution says your desk can become organized, neat, and clean all on its own. In other words, instead of organization being the result of random chances, which is what evolution teaches, disorganization should be the result.

Imagine the sitcom "I dream of Genie" where the genie twitches her nose and the house she lives in becomes neat and clean, you whish you can perform this feat yourself at times I am sure.

Evolutionist claim that random chances - mathematics - does the same thing as our genie; therefore, making evolution an intelligent designer of sorts -- but the equation is not proper till we remove the genie, she would be playing the role of an intelligent designer and evolution says we cannot have any 'intelligentsia' in design. So the genie has to go. Now, the non - living material coming into proper order in our living room is to simple a task when compared to one living cell coming into being.

A comparison has been made to show what impossible - mathematical probabilities would be needed in order for a single cell of life to come into being (Think of the one cell in the microscopic body we discussed above.). This would equate to a hurricane passing over a garbage dump and assembling a 747 jumbo jet airliner and have the plane fly off -- fully operational.

Statistics say this can never happen.

Here is another illustration to help bring home the point. Imagine New York City - coming into existence by all the things this city is made of - flying about randomly, colliding, and forming the entire city with its subways, busses, buildings, and all else that makes up this city. If you believe that this can happen due to math, then you can have your imagined single cell coming into being.

But this does not and cannot ever explain how life comes about. There is no explanation we posses -
no human understanding that can tell us how life starts.
Math - probabilities or chances do not create life.

Scientist know today that life cannot come into being in the imagined primordial soup in the classic experiment - neither were the complete results of this test brought into light at the time of its promotion due to a bias in favor of evolutionary theory.

Dr. Kent Hovind illustrates in his Creation Seminar DVDs that this was a farce. The only thing I can liken the scientist who did this experiment to would be a person selling snake oil as medicine in the old west.

We know today that the earth's ancient atmosphere was not what the experimenters thought it to be at their time due the lack of the better technology and recent discoveries of our day. Neither was known at that time the complexities within a living cell.

One scientist has said; if you take a living cell(s), crush it and place it into a closed perfect - environment and wait to see if any new life comes about (this far exceeds the conditions of the primordial soup in benefiting life), you would have to live beyond any imaginary scope of time due to that no new life would ever come into being.

I would say that there definitely is more to being a human than random events and chemicals in some imaginary circumstances that one has to make up if he believes in evolution as the cause for the specifically designed examples that are infinitely more complex than any man made machinery.

I don't believe that there are many of us who (regardless of what their religious or non religious beliefs may be) think that their existence -- their essence, emotions, thoughts, and all their experiences are just the net worth of what their physical bodies contain due to random chances - a role of the dice.

I truly believe that there is much more to us than science can put a finger on, and knowing we are loved and experiencing that love is the most important aspect of what a human being needs.

Here is a one hour and twenty minutes.discussion (01:20:24.00) showing why evolution directly violates several scientific principles. The speaker is Tray Smith and I think you will enjoy his presentation.



Salvacion Prayer Go to Heaven Heaven, Salvation Prayer
Kernal Logo at


Mission Statement
Support PTM
On Television
Previous Top Next Search Book Mark Share Home Blog
Heaven Water
Healer True Love
Rachel Scott Darkness
The Law Fasting
Thoughts Prophecy
The Cross Jesus Prays
Me Too? Bibles
Transcripts Anointed
Apostasy Creation
Prayers Nephilim
Transhuman Love Wins
Scopes Trial Blog
© 2020