The Lie of Evolution

Pastor David Ministries

https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pastordavidministries
September 2016
2Peter 3:5,6 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the
word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing
out of the water and in the water: (Genesis flood) 6 Whereby
the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished: 2Peter 3:5,6

6
The Genesis flood is of the utmost
importance in the comparison between evolution and creation.
The word evolution has been very much misused and
incorrectly defined in modern times. Therefore, a clear
definition must be given of this word. The main purpose of the
modern use of this word was started over a century ago (by
Darwin's 1859 On the Origin of Species), to give an
explanation of the origin of life, because certain people
rejected the predominant religious teaching, at that time, that
God created the world and human beings in six days,
approximately six thousand years ago. The main purpose of
the theory of evolution was to state very clearly that no
creator was necessary for our existence. Its very essence is
that of atheism.
However, the word evolution has been very much
misused. For example, some people talk about the evolution
of the computer. But, everybody knows that the computer had

human creators and that its creation (not evolution) has

been a slow and gradual process by human creators all within
the last century. The computer could never have evolved
without creators; it was created, it didn't evolve all by itself.
However, it is more likely that a computer could evolve all by
itself than that a human being could evolve all by himself; a
human is much more complicated.
The word development implies the existence of creators,
whereas the word evolution implies the non-existence of
creators; that it was self-producing. When people use the
word evolution concerning things that had creators, it causes
a mix-up in people's minds, because they can see very plainly
the existence of the things created, thereby inappropriately
producing a reinforcement of the belief in the theory of
evolution applied to the origin of life, without a creator. The
subject of whether or not there was a creator becomes
irrelevant and/or insignificant, whereas the existence of a
creator should be the central point. Using the word evolution
inappropriately confuses people. (See article on: The
Consequences of Using Incorrect Terminology.)
The theory of evolution also assumes that species are
always slowly changing into different species,...... which is
false. (assume means to make an ass (donkey's rear end)
of you and me) No specie has ever changed into a
different specie. The DNA code itself prohibits that. Children
are always different than their parents, but children are
always the same specie,..... and not any other specie. All
species have variations from one generation to the next, but
none of them are changing into a different specie; the
variations always have limits. The theory of evolution must
assume that there are no limits. No fossil of any
intermediate form between any two species has ever been

found, never, zip, zero, nada. All of the links between all of
the species are all missing. 00.00% exists.
It is true that the word evolution originally comes from
old Latin and that before the modern theory of evolution
(started by Darwin's 1859 On the Origin of Species),
concerning the origin of life, it was used in a more general
manner, very similar to the word development. However, it is
very important when dealing with the origin of life and the
origin of the planet Earth not to confuse its meaning. Since
the formation of the modern theory of evolution of life there
has been attached to it a very powerful connotation of an antireligious and atheistic rejection of the creator God that goes
along with the package. This atheistic mentality is a danger
that has now been automatically attached to the word
evolution, wherever it is applied.
The Bible teaches that, approximately six thousand years
ago (more or less) God created the world in six days (literal
days consisting of 24 hours, they were not six extended
periods of time, as some people propose, Gen. 1:5 And God
called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the
evening and the morning were the first day.) (Evolution and
creation are contrary to each other, and no attempt should be
made to combine them or to blend them together.),..... then He
rested on the seventh day as an example for people to
dedicate one day a week for rest from regular work and to
devote that one day a week to religious worship service. (Gen.
1,2)
There is a big difference between the age of the earth
being six thousand years, according to the teaching of
creation in the Bible, as compared to about six billion years,
more or less, according to the theory of evolution. (It really

doesn't matter exactly how many years, because they're

always changing it.) (Just to make it a nice round number, we
could make it a million to one difference.) The question is:
where do evolutionary scientists get their number of years
from? Also, why do they feel free to change that number
whenever they get in the mood, and then teach it as though
it's an undeniable fact? The number of years they give is
always changing....... and yet they teach it as though it's an
undeniable fact.
In order to measure the age of the earth one must
examine some sort of process that has been happening on a
constant regular basis, assuming that the process has been
continuing at the same rate in the past. (In this case, it is
necessary to assume something, whereas in those other
cases assuming is incorrect and unnecessary. In the Bible,
people existed since the garden of Eden, which is a close
approximation of the age of the earth. But in science, that is
not considered acceptable. In the e-sword.net free Bible
software, they provide a very nice graphical time-line chart
from Adam to Christ. About 4,100 years.) Then one must take
measurements of quantities of the substances involved in that
process which exist here on earth. For example, a constant
process here on earth that has been very consistent and
regular in its behavior is the falling of cosmic dust onto the
earth's surface from outer space (as well as on the surface of
the moon and the surface of Mars). But, when those
evolutionary scientists measured the speed of that process
and the total amount of that substance on the face of the earth
(and the moon and Mars), they ended up with a total age very
close to the biblical age, about 6,000 years.
Notice they thought that the first space capsule to land
on the moon would sink into an enormous amount of cosmic

dust and be lost, because there are no weather conditions on

the moon to alter its location. But, when the first space
capsule landed on the moon they found exactly the quantity of
cosmic dust as would be expected for a biblical age of the
moon. The difference in quantity is about a million times more
for evolution; enough to cover a tall building. This dating
method of the age of the earth, moon and Mars was then
rejected by the evolutionary scientists because it did not give
them the results that they wanted, regardless of the obvious
soundness of this method. The content of that dust is easily
traceable, but they can't find billions of years of it on the face
of the earth. How could billions of years of cosmic dust
disappear from the surface of the earth, moon and Mars? ..
it's not possible.
There have been also MANY MANY other good and
sound dating methods which were also proposed and tested
by evolutionary scientists (their own people), but those were
also rejected and denied because those methods did not give
them the results they wanted. Pretty soon those evolutionary
scientists had trash cans that were overflowing with rejected
dating methods. Eventually, they needed big dumpsters to
handle all the abundance of evidence they were throwing out.
The truth is, there is an abundance of sound evidence that
the earth is very young, much more evidence than the
evidence that the earth is old. (like comparing an ant to an
elephant) Also, this demonstrates how the evolutionary
scientists start with their assumed theory and then dishonestly
try to twist the evidence to make it fit their previously invented
conclusions...... and reject the majority of the evidence that
doesn't agree with it. (Notice their conclusions are always
formed before the evidence is found.)
There are only very few dating methods that the

evolutionary scientists use to show an old age for the earth,.....

and the only reason why those methods were accepted by
them was that they give the oldest age possible, not because
they are better methods. However, the vast majority of the
best evidence still shows the earth to be very young; the
biblical age. In addition, those methods that give the oldest
age are noticeably less stable because they are based on a
process that probably has changed over the years due to
things like the Genesis flood (which they also reject).
The flood would have caused changes in the earth's
atmosphere and crust, which in turn would have caused
changes in the aging process of almost everything, including
humans. The Bible says that people lived much longer before
the flood. Noah lived to 950 years of age. Gen. 9:29 (also
read: Gen. 5) (Notice the 2014 film Noah is loaded with
errors.) (Noah's ark has been seen by several witnesses on
the top of mount Ararat, in Turkey, usually buried in snow. It is
box shaped, not boat shaped, as clearly stated in the Bible.
(This was one of the few things they got right in the film
Noah.) Its purpose was to float, not travel. It was also the
right size for the job, the same size as clearly stated in the
Bible.) (Notice that there was never any rain before the flood.
It was much more humid then and a good layer of dew
watered the ground every morning. Gen. 2:5,6) (There were
no rainbows in the sky before the flood. God made a promise
by the rainbow, after the flood, never to destroy the earth by
water again. Gen. 9:13-16)
Fossils themselves cannot be formed unless they are
buried quickly and entirely, as in a flood. A plant or animal
which dies under normal conditions, out on open land, never,
never, never forms into a fossil. Trees or animals that die in
normal conditions out on open land always rot, decompose

and fall apart (or get eaten by other animals) before they could
ever be formed into fossils. Without the flood, fossils of entire
creatures in sediment underground could not exist. What's
more, even with their supposed billions of years, canyons like
the Grand Cannon could never have been formed by that
teeny weeny river that flows at its base. The Grand Cannon
must have been formed by a giant flood. In the oceans,
hundreds of underwater cities have been found, which
obviously were at some time in the past above the water line
of the ocean. There are more than 200 known underwater
cities in the Mediterranean alone. Many of those underwater
structures are explained very extensively in the History
Channel's documentary series Ancient Aliens, 2010, season
2, episode 3.
2Peter 3:5,6 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the
word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing
out of the water and in the water: (Genesis flood) 6 Whereby
the world that then was, being overflowed with water,
perished: 2Peter 3:5,6

6
The Genesis flood is of the utmost
importance in the comparison between evolution and creation.
The most widely used scientific method to determine the
age of fossils (not rocks) used by evolutionists is by a process
known as carbon dating..... a technique that measures the rate
of decay and radioactivity in an organic object. Carbon-14, is
not a stable isotope, so it decays over time, whereas carbon12 does not decay, so by measuring the two against each
other, they're able to get a general age. In order to do carbon
dating, you need organic material. You need wood or bone.....

something that lived. A piece of stone can't be carbon-dated.

For fossils that are supposedly millions of years old, they
say that there is no scientific method that will allow anyone to
date the object or bone itself. (which is another lie) (Notice
This is another case when they don't get the results they want,
(like the cosmic dust on the moon) so they find a deceptively
covert way to reject their own methodology, just for certain
cases, without letting anyone know that their own
methodology disproves their own theory,...... and then find a
different way to get the results they want.)
They say they have to date a dinosaur bone according to
the age of the deposits in which it is found. In other words,
they select an object next to where the bone was found and
use that, assuming its proximity must be a result of being the
same age. (How can they date an object next to the bone, but
not the bone? Something smells fishy. More than likely, the
object they use has an assumed age. They probably don't
even date it. They probably just look at it and give it any age
they want, claiming that it has a reputation of regularly being
found next to other objects of the assumed age they
whimsically decided to give it. In other words, the object has
the age they assumed because they assumed the age it has.
They present evidence as fact, which is nothing more than
their own whimsical invention rather than scientific evidence.)
Of course, they can also try different objects and get different
results. Then, they can just pick the one that gives them the
assumed age they already knew they wanted, before they
started, which they already knew they wouldn't get if they used
carbon dating on the dinosaur bone. Carbon dating cannot be
used on any fossil to give a very old age, because there are
no very old fossils. Carbon dating never gives a super old
age on any fossil. (ALL fossils were formed during the same

flood approximately 4,000 years ago. Even if carbon dating

gave them an age ten times more than the true age, it still
wouldn't be anywhere close to the millions of years they want.)
Notice how they completely ignore the level of sediment
in which the bone is found. (All this doesn't make sense, does
it? It smells fishy. That's because they don't want to tell
anyone that their own dating methods disprove their own
theories. The real reason they won't carbon-date a dinosaur
bone itself is that their carbon-dating methods give them an
age that they don't want. They must reject their own
methodology without letting anyone know that they are
rejecting it. How is it possible that they can carbon-date other
bones, but not a dinosaur bone?) They always reject any
evidence that doesn't agree with their theory. Lies, lies, lies,
lies. Their trash cans , rather, big dumpsters are overflowing
with an abundance of their own rejected evidence.
The dating methods they use to date things that are
supposedly millions of years old are three main types:
radiocarbon dating, potassium-argon dating and uranium-lead
dating. All of these are classified as Radiometric dating (often
called radioactive dating), which are techniques used to date
either rocks or carbon, usually based on a comparison
between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring
radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay
rates. However, these dating methods have to assume that
the rate of decay has always been constantly the same over a
very long time, which is impossible to prove and is probably
incorrect.
Going back to carbon dating carbon dating also
assumes that the rate of decay of radiocarbon, carbon-14, has
always been constantly the same over a long period of time.

But likewise, this is an assumption which is probably incorrect.

It is impossible to prove, because carbon-14 is produced as a
result of certain cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere.
But if those cosmic ray interactions changed in the past, which
they certainly would have done if the Genesis flood was true,
then the production of carbon-14 that is present in the
atmosphere at the time when it was fixed in whatever fossil
that is being tested, will not have been the same as it is now,
thereby giving them inaccurate results.
It could've been possible that before the Genesis flood
(about 4,000 years ago) there was an enormous constant
layer of water vapor in the earth's atmosphere that would not
have been there any longer after the flood (During the flood it
rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Modern natural cloud
formations can't produce rain for 40 days and 40 nights.).....
that layer of water vapor was different than cloud formations
that produced regular rain after the flood. (Before the flood it
never rained. It was much more humid then and a good layer
of dew watered the ground every morning. Gen. 2:5,6) That
water vapor layer in the atmosphere was probably in a
different position than cloud formations afterwards, too. (It
would have produced no rain until the flood.) It would have
been there constantly, kind of like the ozone layer is now. It
would have assisted the ozone layer in protecting against
harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun, which in turn would
reduce the aging process of almost everything, especially
humans. This is exactly what would throw those evolutionary
dating methods completely off.
That extra layer of water vapor would also produce a
greenhouse effect on the entire earth, which would explain
why the north and south poles were ice free many years ago,
before the flood. (Ancient maps of Antarctica have been found

that show the exact land formation with no ice on it.) That
extra constant layer of water vapor would also explain why
there was a change in air-pressure, which would cause other
unusual changes in how plants and animals grow. In some
modern experiments, they double atmospheric air-pressure
inside an airtight chamber which causes changes such as
small cherry tomato plants to grow to the size of trees and
produce giant tomatoes. Many animals grew to much larger
sizes in those days. Even very large footprints of humans in
fossilized mud have been found.
The theory of evolution also teaches that the levels of
sediment in the ground are progressively older as you dig
down. Supposedly, older levels are always under younger
levels and older fossils are always found under younger
fossils. But in reality, what is actually found is a mass of
chaos like what would be expected in a gigantic world-wide
flood. At times, (not often) what is supposed to be younger
levels of sediment are found in very large areas under
supposedly older levels of sediment. All fossils are always
found in random levels, as would be expected in a flood.
Sometimes, fossils of entire trees are found standing upright
through many levels of sediment; exactly what would be
expected in a flood.
Trees or animals that die in normal conditions out on open
land always rot, decompose and fall apart (or get eaten by
other animals) before they could ever be formed into fossils.
They must be buried quickly and entirely, as in a flood, or they
don't form into fossils. Also, notice that if an animal died under
normal conditions, how many years would it take for naturally
forming sediment to cover the animal? Millions? What would
happen to the remains of the animal in the meantime? If the
Genesis flood is true, then all of the fossils and sediment are

exactly the same age. They were all buried, in the same
flood, at the same time, approximately 4,000 years ago.
This also explains why there are giant deposits of
vegetation and animal life which have formed into petroleum
under the ground. If those plants and animals died slowly
year by year, under normal conditions out on open land, they
would never have formed those giant underground deposits of
petroleum. Those deposits must have been formed in one
single massive event, such as a giant world-wide flood
pushing all those plants and animals into one area and then
covering them with sediment. Without the flood, those giant
underground deposits of petroleum could not exist!!!
Evolutionary scientists cannot provide any other explanation
for the existence of those deposits of petroleum. Those
massive deposits of petroleum are what provide the enormous
production of the entire energy source to run modern
machinery, like gasoline for cars.
No dating method can give different ages for the levels of
sediment, which is why those evolutionary scientists always
ignore the levels of sediment whenever they use their dating
methods. All the levels of sediment are the same age. This is
why none of the evolutionary paleontologists use levels of
sediment to date any of the fossils they find, nor do they ever
bother to date the levels of sediment. (They already know that
the results won't agree with their theory, which they teach as
though it is a fact.) This also means that their theories about
the different ages (periods), the Triassic, Jurassic or
Cretaceous are all a bunch of hokum.
Obviously, the dating methods that the evolutionary
scientists use are not stable. In addition, they are using them
dishonestly, stretching them to fit their theory. They never
date the sediment itself, they date objects found in different

random levels of sediment (which they can easily twist

however they want) and ignore which level they were found in.
How is it possible that they can date an object next to a
dinosaur bone but not the dinosaur bone itself? (Smells fishy!)
Answer they know how to select whichever object they want
and come up with any results they want..... and objects which
they date at extremely different ages are always found in
random levels, in any of the levels of sediment, which they
refuse to confess openly.
There have also been found, in numerous different
locations, fossils of human footprints running through
fossilized mud along with dinosaur footprints. Where the two
paths cross, the human footprint actually steps inside the
dinosaur footprint. (see video: The Delk Track on Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA) The
theory of evolution teaches that the dinosaurs were extinct
millions of years before the first humans existed. This is
another example of evidence that the evolutionists have to
throw in the trash.
When Marco Polo first went to China, the emperor there
had dragons (dinosaurs) as royal pets. In the enormous
Likouala swamp in the Congo, central Africa, 50 foot
crocodiles have been seen. Youtube.com has videos of Nile
river crocodiles that look almost that long. Search for
crocodile attacks. In addition, other larger dinosaurs have
been seen, by local natives, which always chase away all of
the normal size crocodiles and hypos. The local natives there
have seen those dinosaurs regularly. But, you'll have to
excuse them, they didn't know that those animals were extinct
millions of years ago. All they know is that they've seen them.
(see documentary called: Dinosaurs and the Bible)
Thousands (not hundreds) of sightings of the Loch Ness

monster have been reported in Scotland. Even in America,

near Burlington, Vermont, in lake Champlain there have been
many sightings of a creature very similar to the Loch Ness
monster. The local people there call it: Champ. The sightings
of Champ go way back to the native American Indians before
the first European settlers came to America.
The Bible talks about the existence of giant creatures on
earth existing at the same time that human beings lived. The
biblical description sounds like a fire breathing dragon
(dinosaur). (Job 41) There are many ancient legends of
valiant men who go out to slay a fire breathing dragon, who
were afterwards treated as heroes. (example: Beowulf. The
real story of Beowulf (not the liberally fictionalized movie) can
be downloaded free at www.gutenberg.org) (also, there is a
Norse legend called the Vlsunga saga from which Richard
Wagner composed his opera Der Ring des Nibelungen which
includes Wagner's famous piece, Ride of the Valkyries. (see
it on youtube.com with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra) It is
the legend of how Sigfried the hero rescues the princess
Broomhilda from the fire breathing dragon, named Fafnir.)
(Web search: fire breathing dragons) (This heroic killing off of
those dangerous creatures is a much more realistic
explanation for the almost, but not entire, extinction of the
dinosaurs. Before modern firearms, a poisoned arrow would
have done the job.) (In north America, wolves, jaguars, buffalo
and grizzly bears almost became extinct, because people tried
to kill them off. They shot them down as often as possible.)
Interestingly, in many museums they discovered that the
dinosaur bones (especially Tyrannosaurus Rex) are
radioactive and have to be treated with special lead paint in
order to prevent danger to the people visiting the museum. It
is possible that ancient man killed off many of the dinosaurs

using radioactivity. (read about the technological

advancements before the flood in the article: Angels are
Aliens, Aliens are Angels) Even in modern times, when they
first discovered radioactivity they soon discovered that it was
very lethal. This may also explain why they can't use their
normal radioactive dating methods on dinosaurs; they always
get results they don't want..... and their trash cans , rather, big
dumpsters are already over-flowing with rejected evidence.
In many ancient drawings, engravings and sculptures
done by people many years ago, there has been found an
abundance of dinosaurs (dragons). Sometimes those
depictions show dinosaurs eating people..... or at other times
they even show a person riding on the back of a dinosaur.
The History channel documentary Ancient Aliens (season 4,
episode 10) shows many examples of these. In modern
times, they have the bones of dinosaurs in museums, but for
most of them, the appearance of the skin and flesh can only
be guessed at. Whereas, in those ancient drawings,
engravings and sculptures, those artists show the outer
appearance in reality how they saw the living animal for real.
Many years ago it was commonly taught that humans
evolved from apes. Notice that this theory was originally
proposed with no evidence whatsoever. It was assumed
simply because the body parts of apes are very similar to
humans. Afterwards, numerous times, fossils of intermediate
forms between ape and man were found, (the missing link)
always using very scanty meager fragments of bones, so
scanty that it was very easy for them to invent anything they
wanted. In addition, those bone fragments were usually found
in different places and probably didn't even belong to the
same creature. Lies, lies, lies, lies. But every time there

were other highly respected evolutionary scientists (their own

people) who disproved the validity of those fossils. How about
that?! An honest evolutionist?! No honest missing link
between ape and man has ever been found, which is why it is
called missing.
As a result, eventually it was necessary to change the
theory and propose that man did not evolve from apes, but
rather, apes and men both evolved from a common ancestor,
which brings up some questions. First, if their evidence that
man evolved from ape was so meager and easily disproved,
then, is their evidence that man and ape both evolved from a
common ancestor also so meager and easily disproved?
(Answer: Just like the first theory, they also proposed the
second theory with no evidence whatsoever, zip, zero, nada.
But, they were expecting to find some...... eventually.......
some day. No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.)
Second, what is that common ancestor? Why didn't it have a
name? (Answer: It didn't have a name because it didn't exist,
nobody has ever seen one..... and there is still no
believable evidence that it ever did exist. They invented this
theory with no evidence whatsoever. It was proposed simply
to dodge the issue that they can never find any intermediate
forms. All of the links are missing!!! No fossil of any creature
half-way between any two species has ever been found.)
Third, evolution teaches that species are always improving
due to natural selection,..... so why did man improve but the
apes got worse, which supposedly evolved from the same
common ancestor? (reverse evolution) Fourth, why are there
no modern species more similar to humans? And fifth, why do
modern apes continue to exist, which are supposedly inferior
(reverse evolution), but the common ancestor is now extinct,
which is supposed to be superior to modern apes? (reverse

natural selection)
It is true that paleontologists give a name to every fossil
they find, but none of the fossils ever found have they officially
given the honor of being that common ancestor. Why?
First, all of those supposed candidates for the common
ancestor look like some form of extinct apes, which would be
a big fat embarrassment because they have already
confessed that man did not evolve from ape. (Notice they
don't look like intermediate forms, they look like apes, pure
apes.) Second, none of those supposed candidates for the
common ancestor have a link (intermediate form) to the
specie before or after it. What good is it, if it is a dead end?
No intermediate form between any two species has ever been
found. There isn't any. Third, they don't want the
embarrassment of having someone come along and disprove
it, just as it has already happened to all the other missing
links, which was why they had to change their theory to man
and ape both evolving from a common ancestor instead of
man evolving from ape. Notice the embarrassment is even
more intense when it is one of their own people, an
evolutionary scientist, who disproves their missing links.
Now, nobody ever attempts to disprove their common
ancestor because they have learned how to invent a
common ancestor without really having one.
Fourth, lately they have been using the general term
hominids for that supposed common ancestor, (why is the
word hominids plural but the common ancestor singular?
Answer -- they don't want to pick one so that it can't be
disproved.) This is a deceptive way of inventing a name for
something that should have a different name; don't forget,
they all look like a group of extinct apes. Those
paleontologists have found a few fossils of different kinds of

extinct apes in the last few decades, that look extremely

different from each other. So, they put all those different kinds
of extinct apes into one inappropriate group and changed
their name to: hominids. (web search: hominid fossil
images) Take a look at them. Even a child can tell they don't
belong in a group other than apes, and if they don't belong in
a group other than apes then they shouldn't have a name
other than apes. THEY ARE APES, AND SHOULD BE
CALLED APES, NOT HOMINIDS. The absence of a name
is an extreme embarrassment to the theory of the common
ancestor, which should not be a diversified group, but rather
an individual specie. The common ancestor has no name
because it doesn't exist!!!
This name problem is kind of like taking a gorilla, a
chimpanzee, an orangutan, a baboon and a small Capuchin
monkey and putting them all in the same group and giving
them a new name. (and then claiming that the entire
diversified group is somehow the one and only common
ancestor) (Internet search: ape images. See how many
different types there are.) Normally, the name apes could be
used, but the evolutionists can't use that name because the
theory they invented, when they had no evidence, states that
ape and man both evolved from a common ancestor. So,
the name apes won't work, despite the fact that the
hominids are nothing but a bunch of extinct apes.
Therefore, it can be concluded that those hominids are
just different species of extinct apes with a new name
slapped on them, to avoid embarrassment, so that they can
continue with the second theory they invented, with no
evidence, rather than going back to the first theory they
invented, with no evidence. People don't trust scientists who
are always teaching their theories as absolute and undeniable

facts and then changing those theories and then start teaching
the new theories as though they are absolute and undeniable
facts,...... not theory.
The existence of extinct species of apes does not mean
that they were changing into something else. (Some scientists
say that now there are many more extinct species than living
species. Some say that 97-99% of all species that existed in
the past are now extinct.) The theory that species slowly
and gradually change into other species is falsely assumed by
the evolutionists with no evidence whatsoever. (assume
means to make an ass (donkey's rear end) of you and
me.) The name hominid is used instead of ape to avoid
the embarrassment of going back to the first theory that man
evolved from apes, which they have already confessed is not
true. They insist on sticking to the second theory which they
invented, when they had no evidence, rather than going back
to the first theory they invented, when they had no evidence.
The first theory, that man evolved from apes, they used to
teach in universities as an absolute undeniable fact. Now,
they teach the second theory as an absolute undeniable
fact,...... not theory.
Also, it is more difficult to disprove a group rather than an
individual fossilized creature. Except for the fact that the
group doesn't even look like it is composed of creatures that
belong in any other group, other than apes. And how could
such a diversified group all be the single ancestor of any one
specie? (They still refuse to select any particular one of all
those hominids , rather extinct apes, as the one and only
common ancestor. Even back when they were teaching that
man evolved from apes, they refused to select any particular
one, among the extremely diversified group, as the one and
only ancestor of the human race. Now, they insist that the

entire extremely diversified group of hominids is the one and

only common ancestor.)
But, they knew they could get away with slapping any ol'
thing together, because almost all the leaders in American
universities hate God so much that they'll go along with the
theory of evolution anyway, no matter how ridiculously it is
presented. What do they need any scientific evidence for?
They know they don't need any real evidence. Those people
will accept it anyway, no matter what. (This is a religious
matter, not a science matter. The purpose of the theory of
evolution is to deny the existence of God.)
After they've slapped the new name (hominids) on those
extinct apes, then they contract an artist to invent a creature
(drawing or sculpture) that looks exactly half way between ape
and man. (It is not possible to make one single image of an
extremely diversified group, like the hominids , rather extinct
apes, so the artist just makes an image of a human and
changes it a little to make it look half-way ape-ish, and then
sticks some fur on it. Also, don't forget, all the hominids look
like apes.) They don't even have to worry about making it look
like any of the fossils of those extremely different looking
extinct hominids , rather extinct apes, which look like apes.
(It's not necessary for them to select one.) They know that the
people who go along with the theory of evolution don't really
care about any real scientific evidence. They've already made
up their minds before they've even looked at the facts. Try
asking them which one of the hominids are they trying to make
their artwork look like. Rest assured, they won't say, just like
how they wouldn't say back when they were teaching that man
evolved from ape; which ape? (a gorilla?, a chimpanzee?, an
orangutan?, a baboon?, a Capuchin monkey?)
And voil, their artist has created the supposed common

ancestor,...... which looks exactly like those other artistically

invented creatures they made back when they were teaching
in universities that man evolved from apes. How about that!?!
The artistically fabricated portrayal of the evidence for their
second theory looks exactly like the artistically fabricated
portrayal of the evidence for their first theory. (Remember,
all the artist really did was to half-way ape-iffy the image of a
human being and stick some fur on it. Don't forget, all the
hominids look like apes.) In fact, they don't even need an
artist. They could just use those same old drawings and
statues they used before. The museums and science books
could just slap a new name on the old art work. (No laughter,
please, folks, this is not a comedy.)
Interestingly, when they first started teaching their theory
of a common ancestor, the science books didn't use artwork
for the common ancestor. In their science books they
showed a time-line with drawings of all the species along the
supposed linage of the history (supposed evolution) of the
human race. (Notice that none of the creatures on the timeline had any intermediate forms between any of the species.
All of the links between all of the species have always been
missing. 00.00% exists. They have a perfect score, absolute
zero. Those paleontologists have spent an enormous amount
of time just trying to find just one missing link between man
and the supposed last ancestor. But they normally don't tell
anyone that they don't have any intermediate form between
any of the species. Every intermediate form is missing!!! No
intermediate fossil between any two species has ever been
found.)
In their science books, at the end of the linage there was
a drawing of a man next to a drawing of an ape with an arrow
to each coming from the same question mark: ?. Obviously,

instead of a drawing of a creature, they used the question

mark, ?, which represented the common ancestor. They
used a question mark, ?, because they didn't know what the
supposed common ancestor looked like. Nobody had ever
seen one, so it was impossible to make a drawing of it. They
had no evidence at all, yet they were teaching it as though it
was a fact. What difference does it make whether or not they
had any scientific evidence? They know that the people who
go along with the theory of evolution don't really care about
any real scientific evidence. They had already made up their
minds that evolution is a fact, not a theory. (This is a religious
matter, not a science matter. The purpose of the theory of
evolution is to deny the existence of God.)
Fifth, they have no evidence whatsoever that any of those
extremely different looking supposed common ancestors
(inappropriately named hominids instead of apes) are
ancestors of human beings at all. They have assumed that
with no evidence. Those creatures did not slowly and
gradually change into human beings and those evolutionary
scientists cannot prove that they did. They would need many
fossils of creatures at every minor alteration from the common
ancestor, at every stage, all the way to human beings. But
that evidence does not exist. (There ought to be an
abundance of those things, at every slightest stage of change.
There are people who wear T-shirts that have drawings of an
ape changing into a human, a drawing for each slightest stage
of change. But that is pure fiction, which doesn't exist in real
life. Oh yeah, there are museums that paid an artist to make
some fake figures that look how a slowly changing creature
ought to look, like the artist did on the T-shirts. But that's not
real, it's pure art-work. Lies, lies, lies, lies.)
The only thing they can show is that they have found only

a few fossils of extremely different kinds of extinct apes that

are no longer living, which they don't want to confess are
nothing but apes. (Note those creatures are not
intermediate forms. They are apes. 100% apes.) So, they
slap on a different name to avoid the embarrassment of going
back to their first theory that man evolved from ape. People
don't trust scientists who are constantly changing their theory
and then teaching the new theory as an undeniable fact,
when they used to teach the previous theory as an
undeniable fact.
If it were true that those creatures were ancestors of
human beings then they could take any of the modern apes
and breed them until they slowly and gradually change into
human beings. But they can't do that, and never will, because
it's impossible. The DNA code itself won't permit it. No specie
has ever slowly and gradually changed into a different specie.
God created all the species to stay within their own groups.
Each specie has limits to how much it can change, from one
generation to the next. The theory of evolution must reject
the existence of those limits. No fossil of any intermediate
form between any two species has ever been found, never,
zip, zero, nada. All of the links between all of the species are
all missing. 00.00% exists. They have a perfect score,
absolute zero.
Any of the more recently found evidence of such
intermediate forms should be examined with the greatest
suspicion. Those evolutionary scientists have a long standing
reputation of lying and stretching things to make them fit their
theory. In addition, they also have a long standing reputation
of rejecting and ignoring the majority of evidence that doesn't
fit their theory, like the majority of the sound dating methods
that give a very young age for the earth (The difference is a

million to one. The number million is very large, not small.) or

like how all fossils are always found in random levels of
sediment. Every single paleontologist knows it, but they never
openly face the fact and confess that it doesn't fit their
theory. They know their theory is a lie...... and they like it
that way. They're not in the truth business, they're in the lie
business.
Whenever a young person is starting out as an
evolutionary scientist, they have to learn the customary
evolutionary style of presentation from older scientists.
Otherwise, they run right into a brick wall, kind of like a bird
inside a building for the first time. The bird flies directly at a
window thinking that he's going to fly out through the opening,
but then the bird hits the glass, and sometimes hurts himself
badly. The new young scientist has to learn how to dodge the
brick walls that disprove evolution, in order to progress.
They have to learn how to lie in order to get around the truth;
the brick walls. At first, the new young scientists don't know
how much evidence has been thrown out in the trash.
Otherwise, being new in the trade, they might start looking for
what they think is a good idea, new evidence, without realizing
that it has already been thrown out in the trash. They have to
learn how to keep the evidence that has already been thrown
in the trash, in the trash, without digging it up again. The older
scientists don't like having to look at that stuff all over again.
Those youngsters have to learn how to just follow standard
procedures without asking questions. They have to learn that
they don't need any evidence at all. They have to learn to lie,
and get good at it.
The evolutionary scientists don't really need any evidence
anymore, because they already have almost everyone
believing that the theory of evolution is undeniably true. All

across America, in every major university, the theory of

evolution is taught as a fact for which they no longer need to
bother with presenting evidence. They always teach it as
though it is undeniably true, usually with no evidence
presented whatsoever. They also teach it as being very
important and are constantly pushing it even when it's
irrelevant to the subject being taught..... And the meager
evidence they, on rare occasion, bother to present is always
twisted somehow and irrelevant to evolution, proving nothing.
(This is a religious matter, not a scientific matter. Remember,
the main purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the
existence of God.)
If you are standing in a group of ten thousand people who
are all looking up and saying that the sky is green, that doesn't
mean that the sky is green. Large groups of people all saying
the same lie can be very persuasive on neutral observers.
The truth is that the sky is blue and those ten thousand people
are all liars. In science those evolutionists love doing things
like that. They know perfectly well that the sky is not green,
but they know how influential a large group of people can be.
Those universities are hereby disqualified. Their
diplomas, in these fields of study, are hereby rendered
incompetent/dishonest by the abundance of their own
evidence against them, which they themselves have rejected.
Take a look through their trash cans , rather, big dumpsters at
how much of their own evidence they have thrown out
because it didn't fit their theory. (By now, they need many
large garbage trucks to haul it all away.)
Be careful, those evolutionary scientists have a long
standing reputation of falsifying or stretching evidence to make
it fit their theory. One time they even found (fabricated
artistically) a creature exactly half way between man and ape

(the Nebraska Man), back when they were teaching that man
evolved from apes. Later, it was discovered that the entire
creature was artistically fabricated out of finding one tooth......
which was afterwards determined to be from an extinct pig.
Notice even until today, when they show their supposed
evidence, it is always presented with artistic fabrication; the
artist deserves most of the credit. (Another example of a
deliberate hoax similar to the Nebraska Man was the
Piltdown Man)
Besides, even if it is true that many years ago there
existed some other types of apes closer to humans than
modern apes, it still doesn't mean that those things are
ancestors of human beings. Those evolutionary scientists are
making inappropriate and unjustifiable assumptions.
(assume means to make an ass (donkey's rear end) of
you and me) No specie has ever slowly and gradually
changed into a different specie. No intermediate form of any
creature between any two species has ever honestly been
found, never, zip, zero, nada.
Anything presented by that type of people should be
examined with great suspicion. Lies, lies, lies, lies. Those
people have a reputation for being very dishonest, in the past.
Why do you think this article is called The Lie of Evolution?
If the theory of evolution were true, the ground would be
loaded with an enormous abundance of intermediate forms,
at every slightest stage of changing into something else, all
over the earth (with many intermediate forms between every
specie), not just a few rare cases that are easily disproved by
any honest paleontologist. (honest paleontologist, does such
a being exist? The only honest ones were the ones that
disproved those fossils of missing links between man and
ape. Since they changed their theory to the diversified group

called: the common ancestor, honest paleontologists have

become extinct.) There should be many more intermediate
fossils than fossils of regular species. The mere fact that their
intermediate forms are always based on very few rare cases
itself disproves their theory,..... and should raise suspicion of
the honesty of the meager pitiful evidence they do find.
The very nature of their theory of slow and gradual
changing species demands that the quantity of intermediate
forms must be many many more than the quantity of regular
forms. In fact, what is now considered regular forms would
be nothing more than a temporary brief spot on a continuum of
continual change. The existence of species alone
maintaining the same form for thousands of years completely
disproves the theory of evolution. Thousands of years ago
human artists made images of animals that look exactly like all
of those same animals today. Horses have always looked like
horses and nothing but horses for thousands of years. They
couldn't even come up with a Mr. Ed, a talking horse. More
recent findings of missing links always have very scanty rare
evidence and the evolutionary scientists are now always
embarrassed to say which theory they're trying to prove;
man evolving from ape or man and ape both evolving from a
common ancestor, because all of their evidence of the
diversified group they call: the one and only common
ancestor always look like apes.
Despite the fact that they have been teaching this second
theory instead of the first for decades, the general public still
thinks of man evolving from ape whenever they hear the
subject of evolution. Whether the evolutionists like it or not,
the general public can't get the first theory out of their minds.
(Probably because people don't trust a scientist who teaches
one theory as being an undeniable fact and then changes it

to a different theory, and then teaches the other theory as

being an undeniable fact. Also, their diversified group which is
supposedly the one and only common ancestor always look
like apes.)
In addition, most people don't even understand the
purpose of using the name hominids instead of apes,
especially since all the hominids look like apes. The people
look at it, and can't figure out why they changed the name of
some apes to hominids. What, on earth, do they need this
second theory of the common ancestor for? Why do they
have to change something into something else? The average
person doesn't seem to understand that the reason they
changed the theory was that they couldn't find any evidence
that man evolved from apes. But, that doesn't matter. As long
as they're a massive group, they can keep looking up and
saying that the sky is green, and people will believe it's green
anyway. Those evolutionary scientists might even invent a
third theory someday and teach that as being absolutely and
undeniably true in their universities, that don't deserve to be
called universities because they tolerate this type of irrational
and dishonest hokum, while rejecting the enormous bulk of
facts that support creation (young earth) much more than
evolution (old earth).
The quantity of evidence is like comparing the size of a
dishonest ant to the size of an honest elephant, a million to
one difference. They have dishonestly described an ant hill as
though it were a mountain. It is as though they have tunnel
vision, like horses with blinders next to their eyes to keep
them from seeing anything other than what is directly in front
of them. (Which is usually evidence that is irrelevant and
insignificant to any main point. It must also be noted that
almost all of the meager evidence presented for evolution is

immaterial and impertinent, which proves nothing. For

example, they show that in every specie, offspring are always
somehow different than their parents, from which they falsely
assume to mean that those creatures will eventually change
into a completely different specie, little by little. Or they'll talk
about things like natural selection, mutation or genetic drift, all
of which are assumed to produce positive variations, but
without presenting any evidence. They're not able to
understand that their assumptions are faulty. No specie has
ever changed into a different specie....... and genetic drift is
falsely assumed. Genetic DNA is fixed, it doesn't drift.)
Go ahead, take a look at them on any web page about
evolution. Notice don't waste time looking at the teaching of
the theory itself,..... look for the evidence. They have a bad
habit of teaching their theory as a fact without showing any
evidence at all. They are also very good at beating around the
bush, and running in circles about things that don't matter.
They're experts at making mountains out of ant hills. The truth
is, that it may be a very long job and a very time consuming
job trying to find any important evidence at all. (Other than
irrelevant insignificant ant hills, which they talk about as
though they were mountains.)
They know they don't need any evidence. The people
who follow their theory don't care about evidence. The
pertinent facts are, for example, how no specie has ever
slowly and gradually changed into a different specie, the DNA
code itself won't permit it. No fossil of any intermediate form
between any two species has ever been found, never, zip,
zero, nada. All of the links between all of the species are all
missing. 00.00% exists. Or, how the earth is young, not old.
They're very good at dodging the important stuff, and focusing
on the trivial.

And what about the missing links (many intermediate

forms) of the specie before their supposed ancestor of the
human race? Their common ancestor is a dead end. And
the missing links (many intermediate forms) of the supposed
specie before that? And the missing links (many
intermediate forms) of the supposed specie before that?
Where are their intermediate forms? There should be many
many intermediate forms at every slightest alteration of
change from one specie into another. Each specie, (including
species not related to the supposed linage of human beings)
needs evidence of slow and gradual change (many
intermediate forms) of each animal at every slightest stage of
progress...... from a single cell organism all the way up to the
modern species. The evidence of those stage by stage links
between each specie does not exist; their links are ALL
missing, 00.00% exists. They have a perfect score:
absolute zero. They can't even find one half-way intermediate
link, much less each stage by stage continuum of gradual
changes. There is no such thing as any intermediate form of
any creature at all, never, none, zip, zero, nada. No specie
has ever slowly and gradually changed into a different specie.
In some of their museums they have figures of creatures
gradually changing into something else, but that is done
exclusively with art-work. The artist deserves all the credit.
They're in the lie business, not the truth business.
Without a complete set of links (many intermediate
forms at every slightest stage of change) between each specie
throughout the entire evolution of man, their inappropriately
named ancestor ( hominids , which should be called apes)
is a useless error and a dead end. Notice, even if they did use
the name apes (going back to the first theory), it would still
be necessary for them to select one from the many different

types of apes as the ancestor of humans. It is extremely

unrealistic to imagine that all of the extremely different types of
apes are somehow ALL the one and only ancestor of
humans. They refuse to pick one so that it could never be
disproved, like ALL the other missing links have been
disproved. (by their own people) By never selecting one, it
eliminates the opportunity to be disproved.
Is it really true that there is not even one evolutionary
scientist who will stand up and confess that this common
ancestor (the assortment of extremely different hominids ,
rather, extinct apes) is/are false? They have already
confessed that man did not evolve from apes, so now they
also need to confess that man did not evolve from a variety of
extremely different looking, inappropriately named Hominids
, rather, extinct apes: the one and only common ancestor.
(Why is the common ancestor singular and also plural at the
same time?) (How could all those extremely different looking
hominids , rather, extinct apes, all be ancestors of humans,
all at the same time? Why don't they select one? Answer:
First, they don't need to. People who hold to the theory of
evolution don't care about any real evidence. Second, if they
selected any specific one, it would leave them open to be
disproved, like all the other missing links. By never selecting
one, it can never be disproved.) Is there really not even one
honest competent person among all those evolutionists who
will stand up and confess?
In addition, no specie has ever slowly and gradually
changed into a different specie. None of those hominids ,
rather, extinct apes, was ever the ancestor of human beings
and they cannot prove otherwise. They'll even make false
claims, like: those hominids walked in an upright position
like humans, not like regular apes that walk bent over with

their hands on the ground. But, they won't confess that a lot
of animals are capable of standing upright. Modern apes,
bears or even dogs can be taught to stand up on their rear
legs and walk standing upright. The Meerkat, a small
carnivoran belonging to the mongoose family, found in
southern Africa, is famous for standing in a tall upright
position. In the 2006 film Night at the Museum, when the
little Capuchin monkey, named Dexter, stole the keys and
went running off with them, he ran in an upright position just
like a human being would do.
Next, there is the question of creation of life
experiments. If indeed it is true that life evolved all by itself,
then it would be possible for a scientist to create (not evolve)
living cells in a laboratory from non-living substances.
However, this has never been done. In fact, it has been
proven that at every stage of the development (creation, not
evolution) of a living cell, oxygen cannot be present. Contact
with oxygen would ruin the material substance before it could
get to the next stage of development (creation). But, at the
very instance that a living cell is formed (created), oxygen
must be present or else the living cell would die immediately.
The change must be instantaneous: the absence of oxygen
immediately followed by the presence of oxygen, within
seconds. (This is possible only in a laboratory, not out in the
real world) (. and where could you find a place in the real
world with no oxygen? There isn't any.) (All of this is just
theory. No living cell has ever been created from non-living
materials.)
Also, don't forget about the extreme complexity of the
DNA code that exists in every living cell for every creature. It
would be more believable that a tornado passing through a

junk yard could assemble a perfectly functional car out of old

scattered parts than that a living cell formed its own DNA code
all by itself, by chance. It is not realistic that living organisms
evolved all by themselves, by chance. Random chances
don't form order, they form disorder. A tornado would have left
a big mess, not a functioning car.
In addition, all of the laboratory attempts to create life
always involve the use of very elaborate complex laboratory
equipment and procedures which could never have existed
out in the real world without a creator. (Like the unrealistic
condition that some of the development stages require a
temperature much much higher than boiling point, then the
tiny product they get must be removed immediately, or else
the high temperature will destroy it; a condition that could only
exist in a laboratory.) (Another unrealistic condition is that all
of the substances they use in their experiments are always in
their pure state, a condition that could never exist out in the
real world. They know that impure substances would
contaminate the experiment.) It is impossible for life to be
formed (created, even by a scientific human creator) from nonliving substances. How much less could life have evolved all
by itself, by chance...... In fact, if the theory of evolution were
true there would be living cells spontaneously forming out of
non-living substances all over the place, every day. But that
never happens in real life. All living things are always born
from other living things, parents always produce children.
Living things never evolve from non-living materials.
But, even if those scientists did create life, in a laboratory,
it would only show that a creator is necessary. If they want to
prove the theory of evolution, they need to show life forming
all by itself out in the real world, not in a laboratory. They
themselves would not dare to waste time attempting to look for

such a ridiculous thing. They know it would be a waste of time

because they know perfectly well that the theory of evolution
is not true. They also know that by looking for such a thing
and never finding it, would be more proof against them that
they would have to add to the already abundance of evidence
that they've already thrown out in the trash, into their already
overflowing big dumpsters. (They know they're lying, every
time they falsely teach this theory as a fact. They're in the lie
business, not the truth business...... and they like it that way.)
Only God can create life from non-living materials. God just
spoke the word, and life was formed by His words alone. Gen
1:24 And God said, let there be ....... and it was so. God
created everything by His words alone.
On the History channel documentary Ancient Aliens,
their scientists (who otherwise would have been evolutionists)
propose that the first life on earth was brought here by extraterrestrials at the beginning. They only propose this theory
because of the obvious absurdity of life evolving from nonliving materials, all by itself. (If they were evolutionary
scientists they would never confess this.) However, despite
the fact that they are right about the absurdity of life evolving
from non-living materials, they seem to forget that even if the
first life started on some other planet as opposed to Earth, it
still had to have had some sort of starting point. They
themselves confess that it could never have evolved by
itself....... and they refuse to admit that it could only have been
created......... the only solution that works.
The second involvement of extra-terrestrials they propose
is the development of humans themselves, later on, from
lower species by means of advanced genetic engineering.
They recognize the extreme complexity of humans as
compared to any of the lower species and propose that it

could never have happened all by itself by means of evolution,

by chance. Random chances don't form order, they form
disorder. It is interesting how they recognize the absurdity of
the theory of evolution,..... and that some other explanation
must be necessary, involving some sort of intelligent being(s).
Surprisingly, they don't want to reject the theory of evolution
altogether, they combine their alien theories along with
evolution,...... which ever way happens to be convenient for
them.
It is too bad that, like the evolutionists, their theories
also reject the involvement of God, the creator. They just
substitute the involvement of a creator God with the
involvement of creators that are extra-terrestrials. They
recognize that it is obvious that some type of intelligent
being(s), apart from evolution, must have been involved to
produce human existence. But, they don't want to face the
obvious question: How did the extra-terrestrials come into
existence? Those extra-terrestrial theorists have rejected
both evolution and creation, so how could the extra-terrestrials
have come into existence without the possibility of evolving or
being created? Answer: God is eternal. God was never born,
He had no starting point. The extra-terrestrials were created
by God, and should be called angels or demons, as they
are called in the Bible. (see article on: Angels are Aliens,
Aliens are Angels)
Yet another important question would be the change of
species through breeding. If the theory of evolution were
true, then it would be possible to breed animals until they
would eventually change into different species. For example,
someone could breed dogs or horses until eventually they
would get cats, elephants or lions. (or at least a dog or horse

with human intelligence or speech, like Mr. Ed, the talking

horse.) People have been breeding dogs and horses for
thousands of years, yet they have gotten nothing but dogs and
horses, that have always been speechless. This completely
kills the theory of evolution absolutely dead.
Parrots and a few other birds can talk, yet it is impossible
to breed them so that they can understand what they say. The
only thing Parrots can do is repeat words out of habit, with no
real meaning. Even Koko the gorilla who learned thousands
of sign language vocabulary words doesn't surpass the
intelligence level of a dog taught to do tricks or a parrot that
speaks without any real understanding, merely repeating what
they hear. (see Koko at youtube.com) (How about the little dog
in the 1994 film the Mask who unlocked the car door from
inside and opened it by pulling the door handle. Would Koko
be any smarter if she could do that?)
How is it possible that the foot of a dog could be half way
between a dog's paw and a horse's hoof? What would it look
like? Such a thing couldn't exist...... and there is no evidence
that it ever did exist. Species cannot slowly and gradually
change into other species. All supposed intermediate forms
would be impractical and non-functional. An animal's foot that
was half-way between a dog's paw and a horse's hoof would
be dis-functional. Natural selection would not make such an
impractical, dis-functional and useless animal improve; it
would be useless and inferior, not an improvement. And, in
reality, such creatures have never existed. All species
throughout history have always been 100% functional.
If the theory of evolution were true, the presence of
species would not even exist. Every creature would be in a
continual state of change and the majority of creatures would
be in some intermediate stage between what is now

considered species. Most of their body parts would be in

some sort of non-functional weird impossible formations that
have never been seen in any fossil, ever. No fossil of any
creature between species has ever been found with disfunctional intermediate-stage body parts. The theory of
natural selection cannot possibly apply to dis-functional
intermediate-stage body parts. Dis-functional intermediatestage body parts are not an asset, they are a hindrance, which
would not be an improvement. This is the main reason why
the DNA code has limits to how much a creature can change,
from one generation to the next. The DNA code will not permit
intermediate-stage dis-functional body parts. God created all
species with normal body parts, which are at maximum
functionality. Deformed freaks of nature are never
improvements on a specie.
The only reason why this theory of intermediate-stage
body parts has been widely accepted between humans and
hominids , rather, extinct apes, is that most of the body parts
are very similar and a transitional form between most of those
body parts would still be functional during the intermediatestage. First, despite the fact that most of the outward body
parts seem very similar, many of the inward body parts, like
the speech center and brain, are very much different and a
transitional form would not be functional. The extremely
different speech center was why they had to teach Koko the
gorilla sign language rather than speaking. Second, the whole
concept of dis-functional intermediate-stage body parts must
be completely ignored between most species or else the
theory of evolution cannot be considered rational, even by
atheists. They must ignore the obvious impracticality of disfunctional intermediate-stage body parts. And they must
ignore the fact that they have never found even one fossil of

any creature with intermediate-stage body parts.

It must also be remembered that different species cannot
inter-breed. There are many internal inconsistencies in type
that make it impossible for different species to inter-breed and
produce offspring........ And if they can't inter-breed, how could
they possibly slowly change into a different specie that they
couldn't even mate with? It is not possible that any specie
could slowly and gradually change into a specie that they
couldn't even mate with. The internal inconsistencies that
prohibit them from inter-mating could not possibly be at a halfway point,..... and then suddenly switch to a different type.
How absurd can you get? (No laughter, please, folks, this is
not a comedy.) Variations within the same specie can intermate, like different types of dogs, but not with a different
specie. A dog cannot mate with a cat. If the theory of
evolution were true, this condition could not exist. There
would probably be a lot of species that could even reproduce
without mating at all.
Concerning dogs, there are many different kinds, but as
with every specie, there is a limit to how much they can
change. This limit is the very essence of what makes a
specie to be a specie. A dog will always be a dog. God not
only created all the animals to be in groups of species, but
He also created limits for each specie to which they must
always stay within. You can breed big dogs and little dogs, but
you will never breed a dog the size of an elephant, nor the
size of an ant. Those sizes are outside of the limits for dogs.
The existence of these limits completely disproves the
theory of evolution. Species never change into other
species.
The only possible exception to these limits would be
some sort of freak of nature, which is scientifically called a

mutation. A mutation is not a normal variation within the

limits of the specie, like breeding a cuter looking dog. Those
mutations are always something bad, abnormal and inferior,
never something better. (Like the Elephant Man. See the
real Elephant Man on Wikipedia.) A mutation is never,
never, never an improvement on the specie, and they usually
die young, as did the Elephant Man. A mutation is caused by
damage somehow being done to the DNA code, kind of like a
car getting into an accident. Is it possible to wreck a car in
any way and get an improvement? Is it possible to smash-up
a VW and end up with a Porsche? (No laughter, please, folks,
this is not a comedy.) There is no such thing as a car accident
causing an improvement on the car. (Be careful, they say they
can get beneficial mutations. But, that is because they have
difficulty distinguishing between a natural variation within the
limits of a specie and a mutation. Mistaking a variation
within the limits for a mutation is why they claim to get
occasional beneficial mutations.)
Furthermore, a car accident would not change the original
car design from the factory. (That is, the original DNA code of
any specie. Mutated formations never have offspring in
accordance to any new mutation. If they ever have offspring,
any healthy offspring always has the original DNA, including
only natural variations within the limits of the specie, never
the mutated changes.)
Another example of damage to the DNA code would be a
corruption error to a digital recording. Normally, when a digital
recording is made, the copy is identical to the original. But, if
the computer is malfunctioning or the hard disc has a defect, it
is possible that the copy could be corrupted. If someone
records their own music and wants to copy it, is it possible that
a corrupted copy of their music comes out as an

improvement? Could a corrupted copy ever produce better

music than the original? How absurd! Corrupted copies
always sound bad. Likewise, any damage to the DNA code
will never, never, never produce a better creature. The idea
that genetic drift could alter a specie so that it would
eventually change into a different superior specie is like saying
that defects in audio recordings will eventually change a piece
of music into completely different superior piece of music. A
person who wants to write new music could just look for a
malfunctioning computer that records improperly, re-record a
bunch of music over and over again until finally they get
superior music. (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a
comedy.)
Nobody has ever bred an animal and got an improvement
on the specie outside the natural limits of that same specie.
(Obviously, this doesn't include changes within the limits of
the specie, like breeding a more attractive dog, which is still a
dog and not anything but a dog. Example: long hair
Chihuahuas are much more adorable and cuter than regular
short hair Chihuahuas,..... but they're still dogs. Internet
search: long hair Chihuahua images)
The theory of evolution must reject the existence of
limits to how much species can change. They call this
absence of limits genetic drift, which is hokum. Those
evolutionary scientists always assume that since all species
have children that are different than their parents, there is no
limit to how much they can change. If this were true then no
specie would even exist. All creatures would be continually
in some intermediate stage of changing into something else,
getting better and better as the years go by, with no creator
nor breeder involved. This would also mean that there should
be nothing to inhibit different species from inter-mating or self-

producing without mating at all.

Before modern technology, horses were very important
work animals, and the quality of their breeding was of utmost
importance for thousands of years. Everyone knows that if
you want a better animal, you won't get it without a breeder.
Everyone knows it. (. natural selection is hokum.) Species
never, never, never get better all by themselves without a
breeder. (And inferior variations of species normally have just
as many offspring as supposedly superior variations.) How
absurd does the theory of evolution have to be presented
before people will reject it? Remember, this is a religious
matter, not a scientific matter. The main purpose of the
theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God, which
those people will hold to no matter how much the scientific
evidence is against them.
And what about the old theory of the survival of the
fittest or natural selection, as some people call it? Do race
horse owners get their superior race horses using the survival
of the fittest or do they use a breeder? (No laughter, please,
folks, this is not a comedy.) How absurd does the theory of
evolution have to be presented before university professors
will stop teaching it as though it were an undeniable fact? All
the universities that accept this type of irrational absurd hokum
do not deserve to be called universities; they have
disqualified themselves.
What about the evolution of a body part like the eye?
Supposedly, evolution is a process that happens very slowly
and gradually over many years. Supposedly, the eye
evolved slowly and gradually over many years, improving all
by itself little by little as time went by, as a result of the
survival of the fittest, with no breeder. But if that were true
then for a long time some poor creatures had a part-way

developed eye that was nothing more than a useless and

troublesome lump on their faces, which would not make them
the supposed fittest. (And how did it get on their faces
anyway? And why a pair in front side by side? Why not one in
the front and the other in the back? ... Or, as some species
have, one eye on each side of their heads, which gives them a
panoramic view; practically the same as having an eye in
front and an eye in back.) How could the survival of the
fittest or natural selection make it improve? It couldn't.
Everything that improves does so by some sort of intelligent
design, not by random changes. Random chances produce a
mess, like a tornado going through a junk yard, not
improvement.
The existence of useless and troublesome lumps on the
face would not put that creature into the category of the
fittest and somehow make it have more offspring,..... and
somehow the creatures without those lumps have fewer
offspring. Those useless and troublesome lumps would be an
unprofitable dis-functional hindrance, not an asset. Creatures
either have fully functioning eyes or they don't, because God
created them that way. No specie has ever started a part-way
developed eye that improved little by little, all by itself, by
chance. Random chances don't form improvement, they form
disorder.
What's more, the human race itself does not go along with
the theory of the survival of the fittest. The most advanced
people (fittest) are having the fewest children and the least
advanced people are having the most children. Professional
women (fittest) are usually too much caught up in the
advancement of their careers (superiority) to be bothered with
what they consider to be the inferior lowly waste of time of
raising and training children at home. Even if they have

children, they usually end up paying someone else to raise

them. If they do have children, they normally spend very little
time raising them. Most professional women would consider it
an insult if someone (a man) said they would be better off
raising and training children at home.
Despite their higher education, (from universities that
don't deserve to be called universities) those women are not
capable of understanding that the greatest contribution they
could give to humanity is by doing a quality job of raising and
training children at home. (This comment is not intended to
insult women. It is intended to take note that women need
loving husbands to guide them and protect them from
dangerous errors.)
In addition, the evolutionists who support the theory of
the survival of the fittest would not dare to stand up against
the modern feminist movement that teaches the fittest
educated women to act like men and not do the lowly task of
raising and training children at home. It doesn't matter that
modern feminism contradicts their theory of natural
selection, they will stick to both and continue to contradict
themselves anyway.
The world is being over-populated by the least fit people
of all..... And the theory of the survival of the fittest is absurd
hokum. In every specie, the least fit creatures do survive,
and continue to have lots of offspring. Any particular specie or
variation of a specie that has more offspring is always due to
their reproductive organs being somehow more active, not due
to any other superiority. (feminism is anti-Christian in nature
and purpose. See article on: The Consequences of
Women's Liberation)
The theory of the survival of the fittest is kind of like the
story of two men in a forest who came across a bear. One of

the men knelt down to pray. The other man bent over and
tightened his boot laces getting ready to run. So, the first man
said to him, Are you crazy, you can't out-run a bear. To
which he replied, I don't have to out-run the bear, all I have to
do is out-run you. (survival of the fittest) To which he replied,
Most bears normally only chase creatures that run away from
them. So if you run and I don't, the bear will probably ignore
me and chase only you. However, if we both back away
slowly, the bear will probably not bother either of us, thank
God. (both survived) (Bears are also known to walk away if
you make unpleasant sharp clanging noises, like banging two
rocks together, or two pieces of metal together. It irritates their
ears.) The theory of survival of the fittest must assume that
the un-fittest won't survive and won't have children...... but in
real life, the un-fittest do survive, and continue having just as
many children as anyone else.
The over-population is also contaminating the world with
an abundance of pollution, using the technology created by
the supposed fittest most advanced humans. (Contaminating
our own world is reverse evolution.) The human race has had
the technology, for a long time now, capable of discontinuing
the polluting use of gasoline and replacing it with much
cleaner forms of energy, (which would really help reduce
global warming). (Internet search: replacement energy for
gasoline)
Electric cars are a poor choice, due to the inconvenient
characteristic of the required time delay of recharging the
batteries. Also, the distance limitations would make them
impossible to use for any long distance trips. And due to the
severe limit to weight load capacity, those cars would go very
slow if carrying over-weight people, or extra cargo. Just one
ordinary American chubster would make it run like a turtle.

(chubster, the kind that can barely fit through the doorway of
his own house. Sometimes they can't. One time, one of those
American chubsters couldn't go to his own mother's funeral
because he couldn't fit out the door of his own house. And
sometimes they have to ride around in the back of a van. The
springs might even break on one of those electric cars for a
chubster.) Those vehicles aren't made for heavy loads.
However, the negative characteristic of time delay for
recharging could be overcome by having interchangeable
batteries. But, the supposed fittest humans are the ones
who insist on forcing everyone to use gasoline anyway. (like
the Bush family) Then they lie to everyone saying that global
warming will never cause any serious problems. (see
documentary called: An Inconvenient Truth)
On the subject of the implementation of new forms of
energy, there seems to be something very fishy about what's
going on. (Even in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth,
this subject is avoided. Al Gore spends all of his time pointing
out the negative effects of global warming without offering any
real solutions. Contaminating emissions need to be completely
stopped, not reduced. Catalytic converters reduced the
automobile emissions for a while, but the problem still
continues. The use of gasoline needs to be replaced, not
reduced.)
Normally, when any new type of business is started,
investors know that it is of utmost importance to be the first.
When Bill Gates started Microsoft, he started selling a product
before he even had a product. He had nothing! But he knew,
very well, the importance of being the first to get his foot in the
door. (He didn't get his foot in the door first on smart-phones,
so Microsoft is way down in sales on smart-phones. LinuxAndroid beat Microsoft to the punch on smart-phones. If Gates

had not got his foot in the door first on regular OS's, Linux
would have beaten him on that one, too.) But, somehow the
big, super rich petroleum owners are dragging their
(supposedly fittest) feet.
Why do they refuse to invest their money in the new
technology and get something better started? Maybe it's
because they're too much like the Bush family (who are
leading investors in petroleum). They enjoy causing big fat
disasters like Bush's 9-11, knowing that they're the ones who
did it. (see documentary called: Loose Change or
Fahrenheit 9-11) Disaster is coming, as a result of global
warming (using gasoline), and those petroleum people can sit
back and laugh because nobody is lifting a finger to stop them.
Decades ago was the time when new cleaner energy sources
should have replaced the use of gasoline, but somehow this
mysterious fishiness is causing investors to avoid normal
business practices and not invest in the lucrative and
environmentally safer venture of replacing the use of gasoline.
Why the fishiness? We should not still be using gasoline.
This isn't normal.
Another one is the big bang theory, which is nothing
more than a creation without a creator. This is an outright
confession that the evidence shows the existence of a
creation, but they still deny that it was done by a creator,.....
they say a big explosion did it.
The whole universe is gradually running down and slowly
corrupting itself, like stars becoming black holes. Therefore, it
must have had a starting point in the past. This means that
the universe could not have existed eternally in the past.
Is there anything more ridiculous than the idea of a large
explosion causing organization and beauty? Is there anyone

who would organize their house by throwing a grenade into it?

(No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.) The only
evidence that they have that a large explosion happened is
that there must have been a starting point. Apart from the
obvious necessity of a starting point there is no other evidence
of a giant explosion ever happening; it is an assumed theory
with no evidence. They assumed there was a large
explosion simply because they reject the existence of a
creator, God,..... and there is obviously no other explanation
for that starting point apart from their assumed big bang.
The existence of a starting point does not rule out that it was
caused by a creator. Anyhow, large explosions don't cause
order, they cause disorder, just like a tornado passing through
a junk yard.
In addition, a large explosion would cause all of the
matter involved to move away from the origin of that explosion
at high speed with nothing to stop that movement. In space
there is no air to slow things down. (Which is why the earth
can rotate around the sun for thousands of years at exactly
the same speed with nothing to slow it down. If it did slow
down, even a little, the sun's gravity would pull it in. The earth
would fall into the sun.)
If there was a big bang, everything would continually be
moving away from the origin of the explosion in different
directions, at high speed. This would cause a continual
change in the position of all the stars, as seen from the earth.
By now, all the stars would have gotten so far away that they
would no longer be visible from the earth. (Especially if the
explosion happened billions of years ago, as they say it did.)
However, all the stars in the universe have been in the same
position for a long time now. Thousands of years ago people
saw the constellations in the same formations that they are

seen today. For example: the pyramids in Egypt and Mexico

(in Teotihuacan) were all positioned according to the
constellation Orion, which is seen today exactly the same as
when those pyramids were built. (In Teotihuacan there are
also other structures that mark exactly the position of all the
planets in our own solar system.)
The first question is: how did the people in those days
get such perfect information as to the exact positioning of the
stars and movement/distances of the planets? It's one thing
that primitive man could recognize planets moving across the
sky at night, it's quite different that they knew the exact
distances of those planets. And then the second question is:
how is it that those facts have not changed in such a long
time? None of the stars have changed their position. The
Hopi Indians in Arizona, USA, many years ago built villages,
with perfect measurements, in accordance to the constellation
Orion. (Which has not changed since then.) Our solar system
is not moving through the universe at high speed, nor is the
universe expanding..... And obviously, there was no big
bang.
A university science professor teaching evolution as being
fact instead of theory is kind of like an American history
professor teaching his students that Richard Nixon (tricky
Dicky) was the first president of the United States; he can't do
it without lying. Sooner or later every evolutionary scientist is
faced with the fact that the theory of evolution is a lie,..... and
they have to make a conscious choice to accept that lie
anyway. (They know perfectly well why they throw so much
rejected evidence into the trash.) Of course, it is possible that
they hate God so much that they really do believe their own
lies, which is a type of mental illness.

After all, if they deny the existence of God, then where did
we come from? They must have some kind of explanation
that excludes God. Therefore, they came up with their
theory of evolution, which sounds like it was invented by
someone mentally unstable who dishonestly ignores and
rejects the majority of the evidence which does not support
their theory. (Notice: there are web pages about how
science supports creation much more than evolution.
Examples: The Institute for Creation Research at:
www.icr.org, or The Creation Research Society at:
www.creationresearch.org/) (these pages also have lists of
recommended books)
If anyone finds legitimate fault with anything presented in
this article, just remember, nobody throws away an apple
because they don't like the core. People eat the apple and
they throw away only the core, not the entire apple. The
majority of what is presented here is good and true, and
should not be thrown away.
https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pastordavidministries
or e-mail: PastorDavidMinistries@tutanota.com
Recommended free Bible software:
www.e-sword.net or www.theword.net
Also free Bible audio recordings at:
www.audiotreasure.com

OTHER ARTICLES
The New World Order was Prophesied in the Bible
Pastor David Ministries
Marriage Misunderstandings Explained
Pastor David Ministries
The Lukewarm Church
Pastor David Ministries
Salvation
Pastor David Ministries
Wolves In Sheep's Clothing
Pastor David Ministries
Self-Love and Self-Esteem
Pastor David Ministries
Fatherhood
Pastor David Ministries
The Consequences of Women's Liberation
Pastor David Ministries
Domestic Discipline
Pastor David Ministries
The Consequences of Using Incorrect Terminology
Pastor David Ministries
The Role Of Women Throughout History
Pastor David Ministries
The Suffering Of The Great Depression

Pastor David Ministries

The Virtues of the Spirit
Pastor David Ministries
What About Deborah
Pastor David Ministries
Correct Divorce
Pastor David Ministries
Slavery
Pastor David Ministries
Angels are Aliens, Aliens are Angels
Pastor David Ministries