I have been a Baptist teacher for 15 years.
Now for 12 years I have been an evangelist.
And I travel around and speak on creation, evolution, and dinosaurs.
It is an honor to be here in Coeur d 'Alene, Idaho.
My first time to preach in your city.
How many have been to one of my seminars before, or have seen one of the tapes
before?
Oh, quite a few, ok.
How many have not?
And how many do not understand the question so far?
Ok, that is what I thought.
Well, great, it is an honor to be here.
I tell folks right up front, before I get started too far, because I do not want
anybody sneaking up on me.
I believe the Bible is the infallible, inspired, inerrant Word of the living God.
I believe it from cover to cover.
I even believe the cover on mine says Kent Hovind.
I believe that.
And what I try to do in my seminars, I have three distinct goals.
Number one, I want to strengthen your faith in the Word of God.
Number two, if you are not saved, I am going to try to get you saved.
I am after you, I will tell you right now, I am after you.
Number three, if you are saved and you are not doing much for the Lord, then I am
going to try to make you uncomfortable.
Everybody ought to find something to do for the Lord.
The worst of you could serve as bad examples, if nothing else.
You can all find something to do for the Lord.
Alright, this is not my wife.
This is just a picture of her.
We live in Pensacola, Florida.
I have been there 12 years.
We have three kids, one of each.
My kids are, at this time, 21, 22, 23, a year and two weeks apart.
We call that family planning where I come from.
I have the two boys married off now, and as soon as I find someone to take over
payments on my daughter, I am going to be home free.
So that is the plan.
One of my hobbies for many years, I have been collecting science books.
I like science.
And you can ask any of my kids, or ask my wife.
When I get bored, which isn't too often around our place, I just read science
books.
I like science.
I have taught it for 15 years.
Even though I am not teaching it anymore, I still like to study.
There are so many neat things to learn.
And there is an awful lot of good science in these books.
But folks, there are some lies in our science books.
I am not against science.
I am not against schools.
I am not against teachers.
My brother is in his 34th year teaching public school.
My mom retired from teaching public school.
There is an awful lot of good, godly teachers in the system.
But there is some poison in these books.
And we are going to cover some of that tonight.
Richard Dawkins, who hates creationists, said, "...it is absolutely safe to say
that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is
ignorant, stupid, or insane, or wicked." Hmm.
Well, Richard, I am going to send you a copy of this tape, because I am going to
show you 100 reasons why evolution is so stupid.
We need to define a few terms, okay?
According to the dictionary, stupid means lacking normal intelligence.
Foolish.
Silly.
A stupid idea.
Dull and boring.
I think evolution is stupid.
Now, my mom used to get mad at me when I used that word, so it is a little hard for
me.
But Bill said, "...I want you to preach on 100 reasons why evolution is stupid."
Okay, Bill, well, you asked for it, so here goes.
Let's define some other terms now.
The word evolution has at least six different meanings.
I've done 58 debates now, and if you are going to get into a debate on evolution
with anybody, you better first define what you are talking about, because this is a
very slippery term.
First we have cosmic evolution.
That would be the Big Bang.
There is no evidence whatsoever for that.
We will get into that in just a moment.
Then we would have to have chemical evolution.
See, the Big Bang supposedly made hydrogen.
Well, how did we get 92 elements, plus the synthetic ones?
How did the chemicals evolve?
They don't talk about that much, but that would have to happen.
Thirdly, we would have to have stellar and planetary evolution.
Did you know that the stars would have to evolve?
There are an awful lot of stars out there, folks, but nobody has ever seen one form.
There are enough stars out there that everybody on earth can personally own 2
trillion of them.
We've never seen one star forming.
We see them blow up from time to time.
It is called a nova or a supernova.
We've never seen one form.
One professor told me one time, he said, Well, we calculated in the
laboratory that if 20 stars explode near each other, it will produce enough energy
to make a brand new star.
I said, well, that's brilliant.
You've got to lose 20 to gain 1.
You ought to run for Congress.
You could help those guys borrow their way out of debt.
First place, that's all theoretical.
We've never seen it happen.
And I think it is scientifically impossible.
See, then we would have to have organic evolution.
That would be the origin of life.
How did life get started from non-living material?
Now according to the evolution theory, that would have to happen somewhere along
the line, long ago and far away.
Life had to come from non-living material.
And yet, we've never seen that happen.
There is no evidence that it can happen.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
Fifthly, we would have macroevolution.
That is where an animal changes into a different kind of animal.
Nobody has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog.
But the evolutionist believes a dog came from a rock, if you go back far enough in
time.
4.6 billion years.
Finally, we have microevolution.
Now I don't like this word, because it gets people confused.
I think we ought to just call it a variation.
But microevolution happens, folks.
That is a fact of science.
Animals produce a variety of offspring, but it is always the same kind.
The first five definitions of evolution are stupid.
It doesn't happen.
It is certainly not part of science.
It is something you have to believe in.
They teach the kids it all started with a big bang 20 billion years ago.
A big bang.
I like to ask them some simple questions.
What exploded?
And where did it come from?
And where did the energy come from?
Etcetera, etcetera.
According to the Big Bang Theory, it all started with a little tiny dot and
exploded.
And spread out over all the universe, much faster than the speed of light.
Well, the Big Bang Theory, as we will see in a minute, is stupid.
I don't know of a better way to say it.
I am trying to be nice to them, but it is just stupid.
The Big Bang idea started with a Belgian astronomer named George something,
I can't pronounce his last name.
George said that this original matter was no more than a few light-years in
diameter.
At the very least, that would be 2, or about 12 trillion miles.
So they started off teaching that a spot 12 trillion miles across was what
exploded.
Well they revised that down.
In 1965 they said, no, it was only 275 million miles across.
Well, that is way down from 12 trillion.
In 1972 they said, no, it is only 71 million miles across.
I don't know how they know this stuff, but this is what they taught.
In 1974 they said it was only 54,000 miles across.
In 1983 they said it was a trillionth the diameter of a proton.
Now they are saying it is nothing at all.
Nothing exploded.
And here we are.
This is what the textbooks teach.
Eighteen to twenty billion years ago, all the matter in the universe was
concentrated into one very dense, very hot region, that may have been much
smaller than a period on this page.
That's stupid.
This one says, all of the matter and energy some day will once again be packed
into a small area, no bigger than the period at the end of this sentence.
Then another big bang will occur.
It happens every 80 to 100 billion years.
So you can forget about global warming.
We are going to get squished.
This textbook author was brilliant.
I could not believe how smart this guy was.
He said, boys and girls, nothing really means nothing.
You have to be at least that smart to write a book.
He said, not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time.
However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe
began in a gigantic explosion.
What?
Yes, boys and girls, you see, nothing exploded and here we are.
Who can argue with logic like that?
Man, they even put this in major science journals like Scientific American.
This fellow said, the observable universe, that would be us, could have evolved,
there's that word again, you've got to watch that one, six meanings, from an
infinitesimal region.
In the Greek, that means a dot.
It's then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe
evolved from literally nothing.
They call that science and put it in a science book.
I would call that stupid and put it in the garbage.
This is what the books teach.
I collect them.
I've got hundreds and hundreds of these books from countries all over the world,
clear back from 1890s up until 2001 textbooks.
They're teaching this kind of stuff, folks.
This one says, all the matter in the universe was drawn into this little tiny
dot, and it spun faster and faster.
This is what they teach the kids.
Some kids are doing this for homework tonight, right?
It spun faster and faster.
One day, it exploded.
Big bang.
I was talking to a professor from Berkeley one time.
I was sitting on the airplane next to a professor from Berkeley University.
I don't know if you folks here in Idaho have ever heard of Berkeley or not.
But Berkeley is not a Bible college.
So we got talking about the Big Bang, and he said he believed in the Big Bang
Theory.
I said, yes sir, I figured that.
You have to to teach at Berkeley.
I said, tell me sir, how did the universe get here?
He said, well, 20 billion years ago, all the matter was squished in this little
tiny dot, and it was spinning real fast, and it exploded.
Big bang.
And pieces flew off and became the galaxies, and the sun, the moon,
the stars, and finally, you know, people.
Here we are.
I said, sir, could I ask you a couple of questions, please?
You know, one of my favorite things to do in life is asking questions to people who
believe in evolution.
I absolutely have a wonderful... that's how this whole ministry started.
Twelve years ago, I moved to Pensacola, Florida.
Some article came out in the newspaper that said dinosaur bones found in Montana
from 80 million years ago.
I wrote my first letter to the editor in my life, about 12 years ago.
I wrote a letter to the editor.
I said, yes, they found dinosaur bones, and yes, it was 40 feet long, and yes,
it was found in Montana, but it was not from 80 million years ago.
This one probably drowned in the flood in the days of Noah, 4,400 years ago.
And you would have thought I shot the sacred cow.
Actually, I did.
Boy, there began to be quite a battle in the newspaper.
Letters to the editor flying back and forth, and finally, a university called me
and asked me to do a debate with one of their professors.
Well, I'd never had a debate in my life, except with my wife, and I lost those
every time.
So I was not excited about debating, but I said, well, how do you do it?
What do you want?
And the guy said, well, you send us 30 questions, and the other guy will send in
30 questions, and we'll discuss those questions for the debate.
I said, okay.
So I sent him 30 questions.
I thought they were perfectly legitimate, fair questions.
I said, a woodpecker's tongue goes all the way around the back of his head and comes
on top of his left eyebrow, left nostril here.
Would you please show me any fossils that have been found, intermediate species,
between a normal bird and a woodpecker with his tongue going all the way around
his head?
What evidence do you have of how this evolved?
That question never came up.
I don't know what happened to it.
I said, termites chew on wood and they swallow it, but termites can't digest it.
It goes into their stomach, and there are little tiny critters in their intestines
that actually digest the cellulose.
Now those little critters can't live without the termite, and those termites
can't live without those critters.
Which one evolved first?
I thought it was a fair question, but it never came up.
I don't know what happened.
I think they lost my list.
But anyway, one of my favorite things to do is asking questions to people who
believe in evolution.
So I asked this professor if I could ask him some questions about the Big Bang.
He said, sure, what would you like to know?
I said, well sir, you told me 20 billion years ago all the matter in the universe
was squished in this little tiny dot, and it was spinning faster and faster and
exploded.
I said, where did all this matter come from?
He said, well we don't know that for sure.
I said, okay now sir, hold it.
If I told you that I believe about 6,000 years ago God created the heaven and the
earth like the Bible teaches, you are going to say, and where did God come from?
And I don't know.
But you said 20 billion years ago there was a Big Bang, and you don't know where
the dirt came from.
So basically I believe in the beginning God, and you believe in the beginning
dirt.
Don't tell me my theory is religious and yours is science.
Oh no sir, they are both religious.
The news media tries to make it look like it is religion versus science.
I did a debate in El Paso, Texas here recently, and the news media wrote an
article.
They said, religious and scientific leaders debate evolution.
What is the unspoken message in that title?
What are they trying to imply?
Can you catch that?
They are trying to imply that evolution is part of science, aren't they?
No, evolution is a religion.
Actually both creation and evolution are inherently religious.
These two timelines, it is the same information right here.
I'll be referring to that throughout the seminar here.
I cover this thing all the time.
The Bible teaches about 6,000 years ago God made everything, 4,400 years ago there
was a big flood that destroyed everything, 2,000 years ago Jesus came.
Here we are today waiting for the Lord to come back in about 5 minutes.
This is the Bible view of history.
On this chart, one inch is 150 years, that's a long time.
The 20 billion year chart on the bottom is a very different scale.
But see, both views, creation and evolution, are inherently religious.
You have to believe in creation or believe in evolution.
The difference between the two though is very simple.
The evolution religion is tax-supported.
That's the difference.
By the way, if I was to make that bottom chart the same scale as the top chart,
the bottom chart actually needs to be 2,100 miles long.
That's from Pensacola to Portland, Oregon.
I don't want to carry a chart that big, so I made a new scale for the other one.
If they want to believe it happened long ago and far away, they are welcome to
believe that.
But that's not science.
Evolution is a religious worldview, and I think it is stupid.
So I asked the professor, where did the matter come from?
He said, I don't know.
I said, well sir, would you please tell me where the laws came from?
The universe is run by laws, gravity, centrifugal force, inertia.
Who gave the laws?
He said, we don't know that either.
I said, sir, could you tell me where the energy came from?
You know, it takes energy to make a big bang.
Who bought the gas to run this machine anyway?
He said, we don't know that either.
I said, sir, could I ask you another question?
He said, sure, what else would you like to know?
What else?
What do you mean, else?
You haven't told me nothing yet.
I said, does Berkeley have a merry-go-round?
How many of you know what a merry-go-round is?
You go round and round until you puke?
He said, no, we don't have a merry-go-round at Berkeley.
I said, you ought to get one.
You could learn some good science on a merry-go-round.
If you put some fourth graders on a merry-go-round...
Are there any fourth graders in here tonight?
Who's in fourth grade?
Alright, I like fourth graders.
I spent the best five years of my life in the fourth grade.
That's before they diagnosed ADD.
Put some fourth graders on the merry-go-round.
I like using fourth graders because they're tough and they're expendable.
And we're going to get the high school football team out there to get that thing
spinning clockwise as fast as it will possibly go.
Now, if you have a digital watch, you may not know what clockwise means.
I'll explain it later.
We're going to spin the merry-go-round clockwise.
The kids are going to go through four phases.
They start off in phase one.
They're screaming at the football players.
Come on, let's go!
Faster, faster!
Can't you go any faster?
You get up around 30 miles an hour.
The kids enter phase two, where they stop screaming.
They just quietly concentrate on trying to hang on for dear life.
You get up around 60 miles an hour.
The kids enter phase three, where they start screaming again.
But now they're screaming, Stop!
Stop!
Please!
Slow down!
Don't stop!
They'll keep going faster and faster!
When you get to about 100 miles an hour, you should enter phase four.
That's where the kids begin to fly off the merry-go-round.
When this happens, you will notice a very interesting phenomenon of physics.
If the merry-go-round is going clockwise, when the kid flies off, the kid will be
spinning clockwise.
Until he encounters resistance, like a tree or a telephone pole.
That's because of a law in physics known as the conservation of angular momentum.
You see, if a spinning object breaks apart in a frictionless environment,
the fragments will all spin the same direction.
It's very simple.
It's because the outside is moving faster than the inside.
And so it keeps the same direction of spin.
The professor said, Yes, I understand about the conservation of angular
momentum.
I said, Well, good.
I'd like to ask you a question then, sir.
If the whole universe began as a swirling dot, like you said, why do two planets
spin backwards?
He said, That's interesting.
I said, No, that's more than interesting.
It's kind of hard on your Big Bang Theory.
Not only that, six of the moons are spinning backwards.
Why?
He said, I don't know.
Why do you think they are going backwards?
I was hoping he was going to ask that.
I said, Well, sir, I believe it's very simple.
You see, I believe in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
And God did it that way on purpose just to make the Big Bang Theory look stupid.
I do believe in the Big Bang, folks.
I really do.
The Bible teaches the Big Bang.
2 Peter 3.10.
It says, The heavens shall pass away with a great noise.
In the original Greek, that's a Big Bang.
So there is going to be a Big Bang.
It just didn't happen yet.
That's all.
So kids, if you go to school and some professor says, Do you believe in the Big
Bang?
You should say, Yes, I do.
And you better get saved and get ready for it.
The Big Bang is coming soon to a city near you.
By the way, if the Big Bang Theory were true, the matter would be evenly
distributed.
But it's not.
It's lumpy.
They're called galaxies.
And in zillions of miles of nothing called voids.
And to try to salvage the dumb Big Bang Theory, they've got all these wild
theories.
Why isn't the matter evenly distributed?
They'll say, Well, maybe there's black holes or maybe there's anti-matter.
They've got all this stuff.
It's all trying to rescue this crazy Big Bang Theory.
And it's a dud, folks.
It didn't happen.
There are zillions of stars out there.
I mean lots and lots of stars.
And we haven't even seen them all.
If star births, they ought to at least equal star deaths.
And they don't.
We see a star blow up about every 30 years.
It's called a nova or a supernova.
Well, then how come there are only 300 dead stars out there that we can see,
supernovas?
Huh.
That's only a few thousand years worth, isn't it?
There ought to be trillions of them, if evolution were true.
This fellow said, I have a little hesitation in saying that a sickly Paul
now hangs over the Big Bang Theory.
Yeah, I think it is stupid.
Now, if you want to believe it, that's fine.
I don't care what anybody believes.
That doesn't bother me.
But see, the problem is, they want to use my tax dollars to teach that to your kids
in our schools.
And that's where the problem comes in.
If you want to believe in the Big Bang, just enjoy yourself.
But keep your religion at home.
Because it is a religion.
Then they tell the kids, the earth formed from a hot molten mass 4.6 billion years
ago.
This is part of the theory, and it's in all the textbooks.
4.6 billion years ago, the earth cooled down and formed a rocky crust.
I think that is stupid, and I'll show you why.
Was the earth ever really a hot molten mass 4.6 billion years ago, and it cooled
down?
This textbook says, "...as earth formed, the surface was like the moon.
There were hot pools of bubbling lava." I don't think so.
My Bible says, "...the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." So the earth
was not created a hot molten mass.
It was created under water.
Which means it has to be less than 212 degrees Fahrenheit, or 100 degrees
Centigrade.
Or it wouldn't be water, it would be steam.
So the earth was never a hot molten mass, according to Scripture.
Then when you look in the granite rocks, you find little tiny halos made of
polonium.
Now these polonium halos are absolutely amazing.
Robert Gentry, a friend of mine from Knoxville, Tennessee area, he has been
studying radio polonium halos for a long time.
I met him back in the year 2000 and went down to his laboratory, and we got to see
some of the halos through the microscope.
These little polonium halos are interesting because they have a half-life
of less than a few minutes.
If the rock was hot, when the radioactive polonium decayed and sent out the little
particles and made the halo, it would melt away.
Like on the 4th of July, they shoot fireworks up.
It makes a circle.
Does the circle stay there?
No, it all falls down, right?
There are probably none up there now from the last 4th of July, are there?
You would have to freeze the whole atmosphere to keep that sphere in place.
This polonium would have to be decaying in a rock that is already solid.
So the earth was never a hot molten mass.
Get Robert Gentry's book if you want a lot more on that.
But the granites all over the world contain these polonium halos.
So it is stupid to say the earth was a hot molten mass.
We have scientific evidence it was not.
Here they tell the kids, though, the earth was hot with large pools of
molten lava, and that is just stupid.
It can't possibly be true.
Then they tell them life got started about 3 billion years ago.
See, according to the theory, 20 billion years ago there was a big bang.
4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down, formed a hard rocky crust,
and it rained on the rocks for millions of years and turned them into soup.
And the soup came alive about 3 billion years ago.
This is what the books teach.
This fellow says, both the origin of life and the origin of major groups of animals
remains unknown.
How did life get started anyway?
Well, this textbook tells the kids, oceans formed as it rained on the rocks
for millions of years.
Yes, boys and girls, millions of years of torrential rains created great oceans.
And swirling in the waters of the oceans is a bubbling broth of complex chemicals.
Progress from a complex chemical soup to a living organism is very slow.
Well, I guess it is.
It's totally stopped.
It doesn't even happen.
That's how slow it is.
This one says, the first self-replicating systems must have emerged in this organic
soup.
Was your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great,
great, great, great grandpa soup?
I think that's stupid.
If they want to believe it, that's fine.
I don't care what they believe, but don't call it science.
What happened back in the 1950s, a guy named Miller and Urey wanted to know
how the earth and solar system had come to be.
So they tell the kids, he took a mixture of earth's primitive atmosphere.
We'll talk about that in a minute.
He never proved how life originated, but he did add evidence to the theory that
life could have started by itself.
Well, is that true?
Now, did he really do that?
Well, let's just study the facts here.
This textbook tells the kids, many important events occurred during the
Archean era, the most important of which was the evolution of life.
Progress from complex molecules to even the simplest living organism was a very
long process.
Long ago and far away.
Fairytale kids, coming up.
First living cells emerged 4 billion to 3.8 billion years ago.
I like that word, emerged.
They use it all the time, like that explains how it happened.
It just emerged.
There is no record of the event, they tell the kids.
Look kid, we know what happened and you're going to be tested on this, but there's no
proof.
Okay, it's not science.
First living self-replicating systems must have emerged in this soup.
I don't think so.
Here's what students are taught in school.
This picture of the different glass tubes and flasks and pipes going around.
They tell them this is how they made life in the laboratory.
Hmm.
He said he studied the chemical reactions of gases that existed in Earth's primitive
atmosphere.
Oh, now this is important, okay.
Notice up in the upper right-hand corner he had methane, ammonia, water vapor,
and hydrogen.
No oxygen.
He circulated these gases through these tubes through a spark, supposed to
represent lightning.
And sure enough it produced a red goo at the bottom of the flask and had some amino
acids in it.
Hmm.
It didn't come close to getting life though.
Miller excluded oxygen in a reducing atmosphere because life could not evolve
with oxygen.
Anything that got together would oxidize.
Cut a banana open, lay it on the table, it will turn brown.
It will oxidize.
So will an apple.
So will anything alive.
It will oxidize.
So that's why he didn't have any oxygen in the experiment.
One of his gases was ammonia.
Well, this creates a real serious problem because ammonia is destroyed by UV light.
And UV light must be blocked by ozone, which is made from oxygen.
Ah, I've got a problem here.
This textbook says, several billion years ago Earth's atmosphere had no free oxygen.
Well, that's just simply not true.
Ozone is made from oxygen, and it blocks UV light.
And ammonia, one of the gases needed for the experiment, is destroyed by UV light.
So life cannot evolve without oxygen.
But also life cannot evolve with oxygen.
Well, I've got a solution for that one.
It didn't evolve.
And by the way, the Earth has always had oxygen, even more than it does today.
Air bubbles are often found trapped in amber, like the movie, Jurassic Park,
where they drilled in and got the mosquito blood.
These air bubbles, though, have 50% more oxygen than we do right now.
We cover more on that on my video series, Video Tape No.
2, about what the pre-flood world was like and why they live to be 900 on the blue
series of tapes out there on the table.
But this textbook says, the mixture at the bottom of the flask was rich in amino
acids.
Oh, come on.
That is stupid.
It was not rich in amino acids.
Let's tell the kids what they really found.
He filtered out the product.
As this gas went through the tubes, he sparked it, produced this goo at the
bottom.
And he drew the goo off, because if it went through again, it would be destroyed
by the spark.
Now in real life, you are not going to get a section of the ocean protected.
They say, this just happened by chance in the ocean.
Well, you can't filter out the product then.
Secondly, what he made was 85% tar, 13% carboxylic acid, 2% amino acids.
So 98% of his mixture was poisonous to life.
I would not call that a success.
And there are 20 different amino acids, sort of like 26 letters in the alphabet,
there are 20 amino acids.
Those amino acids go together to make proteins, like letters go together to make
sentences.
Mostly he made just two of these amino acids.
And they bond with the tar and the acid very quickly, more readily than with each
other.
It was a failure as an experiment.
Amino acids are like letters of the alphabet, sort of like building blocks.
You have to have a bunch of amino acids to make a protein.
Then you have to have a bunch of proteins to make a cell.
And you have to have a bunch of cells to make an organism.
And one cell is more complex than a space shuttle.
And all he got was a couple of the amino acids.
That's like me dropping toothpicks, and I happen to make a few letters of the
alphabet.
That's possible, isn't it?
Toothpicks could fall in the shape of a T, or an H, or an I, or an E.
That's possible.
But if I am able to drop toothpicks and produce a few letters of the alphabet,
should I therefore conclude that nobody wrote Webster's Dictionary?
The difference between making a letter with toothpicks and making Webster's
Dictionary is about like making an amino acid and making a living cell.
He didn't come close to making life.
He made the equivalent of a few letters, and he actually needed to make huge books.
And half of his letters were backwards, left-handed.
This creates a real problem, since the simplest proteins, the smallest proteins,
have 70 to 100 amino acids, all of them left-handed.
This really compounds his problem.
RNA and DNA are all right-handed molecules.
And they are unbelievably complex.
And hundreds of these amino acids must combine to make a protein.
And this has to be in a precise order.
And they unbond in water much faster than they bond.
And last time I checked, the oceans are completely full of water.
So Brownian motion is going to drive them away from each other, not together.
It just isn't going to work.
He did not make life in the laboratory.
But they tell the kids, he showed how life could have started by itself.
Oh, that is just stupid.
That's a lie.
He did not show anything of the kind.
And every experiment since then has made the problem worse.
They are finding more and more things that just couldn't happen.
Don't call that science.
But they tell the kids, you know, three billion years ago, life appeared on
earth.
I was asked to speak at this college in Boston one time.
This preacher called all the colleges and universities around Boston.
And said, would you like to have Kent Hovind come speak at your college?
Finally, one professor said, yes, he can come speak at our school,
if our professors can ask him any questions they want.
Because we want to show our students how dumb these creationists really are.
So the preacher called me and said, Brent Hovind, would you like to speak at
this college and let them make fun of you for a couple of hours?
I said, I would be honored.
So I showed up.
There were six professors and all their students.
You know, I felt like Daniel in the lion's den.
I got my charts out and I said, now folks, I believe the Bible.
Nobody cheered.
I said, I believe about 6,000 years ago God made everything.
The world is not millions of years old.
4.6 billion years ago, there was a big flood.
I'm sorry, 4,400 years ago, there was a big flood.
And 2,000 years ago Jesus came and I gave them the basic Bible story.
Then I told them what they believe.
Because most of them don't know what they believe, you have to tell them.
You guys believe 20 billion years ago there was a big bang where nothing
exploded and produced everything.
4.6 billion years ago the earth cooled down, made a hard rocky crust.
It rained on the rocks for millions of years, turned them into soup, and the soup
came alive.
3 billion years ago.
And this early life form found somebody to marry.
Boy, now that's a good trick.
And something to eat, of course, and slowly evolved into everything we see
today.
One professor was getting kind of upset about this time.
I seem to do that to them.
He said, Mr. Hovind, there are hundreds of varieties of dogs in the world.
I said, yes sir, you are right about that.
He said, you mean to tell me that you believe all these dogs came from two dogs
off of Noah's Ark.
You expect me to believe that?
Ha, ha, ha.
I said, sir, would you look at what you are teaching your students.
You are teaching your students that all the dogs in the world came from a rock.
I had one lady, I'm sorry, woman, come to me after a debate one time.
She was steaming down the aisle, boy, she was mad.
Oh, I could tell, I'm in trouble now.
I stood there quivering in my boots, you know.
She walked up and she said, tonight, you said, we believe we come from a rock.
We do not believe that.
I said, well, ma'am, calm down just for a minute.
I said, do you believe in evolution?
She said, yes, I do.
I'm a professor here at the university.
I said, well, would you please tell me then where we came from?
She said, we came from a macromolecule.
I said, where did that come from?
She said, from the oceans, from the prebiotic soup.
I said, where did that come from?
She said, well, it rained on the rocks for millions of years.
And you could see it was slowly dawning on her.
I do believe I come from a rock, don't I?
Yes, ma'am, you do.
You ought to be proud of it.
Hey, don't step on grandpa, whatever you do.
Look, that's stupid.
There is no kind way to say it.
There is a great book dealing with some of the flaws in the Miller Experiment.
If you want more on that for your kids to study out there on the table, get the
book, Icons of Evolution.
Then they tell the kids that these plants and animals, not only did life evolve from
non-living material, then this life had to learn to reproduce itself.
Why would any organism want to reproduce more of its own kind when that's only
going to increase competition for the food supply?
Why didn't they instead evolve the ability to live forever and be happy?
Huh?
You ever think about that?
I was in a debate one time and we had question and answer time at the end.
The student stood up and he said to the evolutionist, he said, Sir, how did male
and female evolve?
The professor got up and he said, Well, that is a giant mother-may-I step in
the evolution story.
A mother-may-I step on this in science?
Wow!
So according to them, for the next few billion years or hundreds of millions of
years, life learned to reproduce something other than its own kind.
Of course, today everything only produces its own kind.
But they say, long gone far away, they were able to do something different.
Textbooks will say, we started like a bacteria and slowly evolved to a human.
I think that is stupid, but if you want to believe that, that is perfectly fine.
Those trees of life that they put in the textbooks for your kids are a bunch of
nonsense.
And even evolutionists will admit that.
Stephen Jay Gould, the Marxist professor at Harvard University, he says that
evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks are not the evidence of fossils.
It is only inference.
We infer, we imply, we hope it happened this way.
This textbook says, All the many forms of life on earth today are descended from a
common ancestor.
What?
You mean the birds and the bananas have a common ancestor?
Isn't that what he says?
Found in a population of primitive unicellular organisms.
Well in the first place, there is no such thing as a primitive unicellular organism.
One single cell is more complex than a space shuttle.
There is no such thing as a primitive single-celled organism.
We talk about that on video number 4 of our series.
But he says, All the forms of life are descended from a common ancestor.
Found in a population of primitive unicellular organisms.
What were those first cells like?
How do we know?
What events led up to their formation?
No traces of those events remain.
Did you catch that?
Hey kid, we know what happened, but there is no proof.
Primitive, huh?
This one says, The humans, mammals, birds, crocodiles, all had a common
ancestor.
Well anything inside that circle is religious speculation.
It is stupid.
Reptiles produce reptiles.
Dogs produce dogs.
People produce people.
And there has never been an exception to that.
Darwin said, though, If my theory be true, Here is his book right here.
You can look on page 211.
He said, If my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties must
assuredly have existed.
Boy, you are right about that, Charlie.
I mean, to change from a rock to a dog would take a few changes.
David Ropp, who believes in evolution very strongly, says, In the years after Darwin,
his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions.
In general, these have not been found, yet the optimism has died hard,
and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.
Oh, you are kidding!
Fantasy in our textbooks?
Oh, yep.
They tell the kids they have evidence of evolution from fossils.
I don't think so.
That is stupid.
If you find a fossil in the dirt, all you know is it died.
You don't know that it had any kids.
Do you?
And you sure don't know that it had different kids.
I mean, think about it.
You are in a court of law.
You bring in a bone to the judge.
Judge, I found this bone in the dirt.
This is the ancestor of all the humans today.
They would laugh at you.
You don't know that that is the ancestor of anybody.
Do you?
And why on earth would you think a bone in the dirt can do something animals today
cannot do?
Animals today can only produce the same kind, right?
Dogs produce dogs, folks.
Luther Sunderland asked all the major evolutionists, he said, where is the
evidence for evolution?
They all said, well, somebody else has it.
We don't have it over here.
So he wrote a letter to Colin Patterson.
He is the director of the British Museum of Natural History.
They have got the largest fossil collection in the world.
He said, Mr. Patterson, I read your book on evolution.
I noticed you didn't show us the missing links.
Why didn't you show us the missing links?
Patterson wrote back and said, I fully agree with your comments on the
lack of evolutionary transitions in my book.
If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil.
There are no missing links, folks.
No chain is missing.
Even Stephen Gould admitted, the absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages
is a persistent and nagging problem for evolution.
We got the theory, we know it's true, now we just need the evidence.
That's the way they think about it.
Richard Gouldschmidt said, maybe the first bird hatched from a reptile egg.
Richard, I'm sorry, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but that's stupid.
See, what's happened, these guys have looked for missing links in the fossil
record.
They can't find any.
And so they say, well, maybe evolution happened so fast it wasn't preserved.
Maybe a reptile laid an egg and a bird hatched out.
Well, who did that bird marry?
There's only about a zillion differences between a reptile and a bird.
We'll get into that later sometime if we have time.
But if they want to believe that, that's perfectly fine.
Here's what happened.
Charlie Darwin graduated from Bible College to be a preacher in the Anglican
Church in 1830.
He couldn't get a job, so his dad pulled a few strings and got him a job on board HMS
Beagle.
He's going to sail around the world and collect bugs.
And while he's sailing around, he stopped off at these islands right
there called the Galapagos Islands.
There on those islands, Charlie noticed there were 14 different varieties of
finches.
Charlie studied the birds very carefully and said, You know what?
I think all these birds had a common ancestor.
I bet you're right, Charlie.
It was a bird.
And then Charlie said in his book on page 170, He said, It is a truly wonderful fact
that all animals and all plants throughout all time and space should be related to
each other.
Now hold on a minute.
You see 14 kinds of birds and you conclude that birds and bananas are related.
That's stupid.
You should conclude that those 14 kinds of birds had a common ancestor, but that's as
far as it ever goes, folks.
I don't know of a kind way to say it, Charlie, but that's stupid.
We don't ever see a bird produce a non-bird.
See, dogs produce dogs, and you might get quite a variety of dogs.
Roses produce roses.
That is called microevolution.
Now that is a fact, folks.
It happens.
It is observable.
It is scientific.
I don't think we ought to use that word, microevolution.
We should just call it a variation.
But they use it just so I qualify that.
It is a lousy term.
It gives what is called a free-rider effect to the rest of the five religious
ideas of evolution.
You might get a big dog or a little dog, but you are always going to get a dog when
you crossbreed your dogs.
And I would go so far as to say probably the dog, the wolf, and the coyote had a
common ancestor.
This Irish textbook shows different dogs and it calls it divergent evolution.
Oh, come on, giving it a fancy name doesn't change a thing.
It is still a dog.
And a three-year-old can tell you.
Anybody in here five years old?
Who is five years old?
Five years old.
What is your name?
Misty.
Here we have a dog, a wolf, a coyote, and a banana.
Which one is not like the others?
Dog, wolf, coyote, and banana.
Banana.
All right, let's give Misty a hand.
Very good.
The other ones.
Somebody's college professors can't tell.
Look, there is a variety of dogs, folks, and they probably had a common
ancestor.
It was a dog.
It is just a dog.
See, variations happen within the dog kind.
You get a big dog or a little dog, but there are limits to these variations.
Haven't the farmers been trying to breed for bigger pigs for a long time?
They try to get the biggest pig they can, don't they?
Do you think they will ever get a pig as big as Texas?
I bet there is a limit in there somewhere, isn't there?
Roaches become resistant to pesticides after a while.
Do you think they will ever become resistant to a sledgehammer?
I bet there is a limit.
They still produce the same kind of plant or animal.
That is not evolution.
That is just a variation of the same kind.
And the information for that variety was already present in the gene pool.
No new information is ever added.
The dogs or the pigs don't learn to fly or become pink.
There is no new information added, just scrambled information.
And the gene pool of the new variety is now more limited than before.
Somebody spent years crossbreeding dogs to develop a chihuahua.
All that work to make a dog that is 100% useless.
Let's turn all the chihuahuas in the world loose back into the woods.
How long would they last?
They would run up to the wolf.
Yip, yip, yip, crunch.
Go ahead, make my day.
A useless dog.
Genetic information was lost when you got your variation.
It wasn't added.
You might have selected a certain slice of the gene pool with small dog
characteristics, but you didn't add anything.
You selected something from the population.
I come from Illinois, corn country.
There are so many kinds of corn up there, they have to number them.
You'll be driving down the highway, you'll see BX65, don't mix it up with
XL29, you know something will blow up.
But I'll tell you what folks, you can crossbreed your corn from now until the
cows come home and you always get corn.
You will never get a hamster or a tomato or a whale to grow on that corn stalk.
It won't happen.
There was a variety of cows and they probably had a common ancestor.
It was a cow.
A variety of horses, no question.
Probably the zebra and the horse had a common ancestor.
But the kids are going to be taught in school tomorrow in your town that the
horse used to have four toes.
Well, there are some things they don't tell the kids about this Eohippus to Equus
series, which has been proven wrong 50 years ago.
But it still is in your textbooks right here in this town.
They don't tell them the original so-called horse is the size of a fox.
It was a meat-eater and had 18 pairs of ribs.
The next one had 15 pairs of ribs.
A couple of trips through the buzz saw did that.
And then it miraculously grew back 19 pairs of ribs as it evolved and then back
to 18.
They also don't tell them the whole thing has been proven wrong a long time ago.
Like this guy says in a biology textbook, "...other examples, like the gradual
evolution of the horse, have not held up under close examination." That's a polite
way of saying it's proven wrong.
This G.G.
Simpson back in 1950 said, "...the example of the horse family has been
unintentionally falsified." They knew 50 years ago this was false.
Why do they keep that in your textbooks?
This whole thing was made up by Othniel C.
Marsh in 1874.
He picked animals from all over the world and put them in order the way he thought
it might have happened.
They were never found in that order.
Modern horses are found in the same layers as the so-called ancient horse.
They are found in the same layer.
So it can't be the ancestor, that's for sure.
The ancient horse is nothing but a Hyrastletherium, which is still alive
today.
By the way, the ribs, the toes, the teeth are very different in these
animals.
In South America, the fossils go exactly backwards.
Instead of three-toed to one-toed, it goes one-toed to three-toed in the
fossil order.
They won't talk about that much, but you check it out.
That's a fact, folks.
They are never found in the order presented in the textbooks.
Three-toed and one-toed graze side-by-side.
Plenty of information on the Internet about that.
Tulsa Zoo finally took out their display because so many folks complain,
why do you have this horse evolution display in the zoo?
It's been proven wrong 50 years ago.
Take it out!
And you folks ought to get together with your school board and say, Hey,
look, on page 952 of our textbook, it says, The horse evolved from a
four-toed ancestor.
Let's cut this page out.
If you had a page in your textbook teaching the kids the earth was flat,
would it be okay to demand that that page be removed?
You don't have to buy a whole new book.
Just cut the page out.
It won't cost the school anything.
How many of you would volunteer to help cut the pages out and bring your own
scissors?
See?
It won't cost them a dime.
And you send me your book and I'll show you which pages need to be taken out.
I've read hundreds of them.
I can find them like that.
Free of charge.
I'll donate my time.
Peabody Museum still has the horse evolution on display.
As I stood there, I've been there many times.
It makes my blood boil every time I walk in that place.
I'm standing there looking at this lie proven wrong 50 years ago, while hundreds
of kids come through in school groups.
The kids are never told, well, this has been proven wrong, boys and
girls.
They asked the folks at the Tulsa Zoo, before they took the display down,
they said, why don't you take this display down?
The zoo director said, we don't have the funding to remove it.
I've got all the letters back and forth on that.
Folks, there's quite a variety of horses today.
There's big horses and little horses.
I was in Baton Rouge, Louisiana a few months ago.
I got to see where they raised the 30-inch tall horses.
My dog is bigger than that.
What do you do with a 30-inch horse?
Look at it, I guess is about it.
And they sell them for $10,000.
I'm sucker-born every minute, I guess.
But one lady wrote me a letter and said, Mr. Hovind, we cross-breed zebras,
ponies, horses, and mules.
Not mules, the jackass.
And we raise zonkeys, zorses, zionis.
They cross every which way.
Well, that's probably because they are the original same kind.
No problem there.
If you want to see all the fatal flaws in the horse evolution story, get the book
out there, Icons of Evolution.
So, then they are going to tell the kids, well, we have evidence for this theory.
We think that one animal changed to another, and we can show evidence because
many animals have similar forelimb structure.
This is called the argument from homology.
Well, what do they tell the kids?
They will say, boys and girls, you have two bones in your wrist,
radius and ulna.
And boys and girls, look at the whale's flipper carefully.
Did you know the whale has two bones in his flipper, and they are called the
radius and the ulna?
Same as ours.
Wow, who named him, teacher?
The whale?
Think about it.
But this is one of the evidences for evolution.
They are going to say, boys and girls, comparative anatomy provides further
evidence of evolution.
The commonalities suggest that these and other vertebrate animals are all related.
They probably evolved from a common ancestor.
Well, duh, that's stupid.
Maybe they all had the same designer.
It doesn't prove a common ancestor.
By the way, the bones develop from different genes in these different
organisms.
They are not homologous organisms like they want you to believe.
Similar design might prove the same engineer made the design.
A lot of bridges in the world are kind of similar to each other.
You can go compare different suspension bridges around the world, Golden Gate
Bridge and other bridges, and there are a lot of similarities.
It doesn't prove one is the father of the other, or that a tornado put them up.
No, it's a design that works good.
I discovered that the Pontiac lug nuts from a Pontiac will fit on a Chevy.
They will.
That proves they both evolved from a Honda 14 million years ago.
No, the same engineers are designing these cars.
Then they tell the kids about the geologic column.
How many have ever heard that the different layers of the earth are
different ages?
They show the kids Grand Canyon.
Yes, boys and girls, this one says, Over millions of years, the Colorado River
has carved the Grand Canyon from solid rock.
I'm sorry, but that is stupid.
I'll explain why.
Kids, you need to learn this.
This is a very simple thing to learn, and you'll go through life much further
than many of these professors go.
Make yourself three columns.
Facts are in the middle.
It's a fact Grand Canyon exists.
The evolutionist has an interpretation of that fact.
And the creationist has an interpretation of the fact.
Now it's not part of the fact, it's an interpretation of the fact.
The evolutionist says, The canyon formed slowly by a little bit of water and lots
of time.
The creationist says, Oh no, we think it formed quickly by lots of water and a
little bit of time.
It's a fact the earth has sedimentary layers.
That's not a question.
How did they get there?
Well, the evolutionist says, These layers formed slowly over millions of years.
The creationist says, Oh no, these layers are all from the flood in the days of
Noah.
Now it seems like the professors are always trying to erase the line between
their interpretation and the fact.
And make their interpretation part of the fact column.
And it's not.
And I think I can demonstrate Grand Canyon was not formed by the Colorado River.
I was in a debate recently and this professor said, Dr. Hovind, you're so
stupid.
Obviously it took millions of years to form the Grand Canyon.
I said, well sir, I've seen Grand Canyon many times.
I've taught earth science for 15 years.
I've studied it intensively.
I just flew over it last week, as a matter of fact, twice.
I've got a perfect view of it going out to California and back, flying from wherever
I was.
Florida, that's where I live.
This textbook says, The Colorado River has cut through layer upon layer of rock over
millions of years.
Well, if you built a dam across Grand Canyon, it would take a lot of dirt or
concrete.
But if you could, it would be a huge dam.
A giant lake would back up behind that dam, covering several states.
That purple area is all drained right through the Grand Canyon drainage basin.
Hmm...
This snow line tells a very interesting story.
In between these two red lines is snow.
This is a picture from a satellite showing about 150 or 200 miles of the canyon area.
Real wide shot.
The river enters the canyon at the far right.
The river is 2,800 feet above sea level.
As it goes down through the canyon, the ground is rising up.
It is called the Kayabab Uplift.
The uplift is 7,000 or 8,000 feet above sea level.
Hmm...
Interesting.
The river flows downhill.
All rivers flow downhill.
So as the river enters the canyon and flows downhill from there, when it gets to
the 1,800 foot elevation mark, the top of the canyon is 7,000 or 8,000
feet above sea level.
So it is over a one-mile drop.
Very impressive.
A hole in the ground.
But some points to ponder.
I said to the professor, I said, Sir, did you know the top is higher than
the bottom?
He said, Yeah.
I said, Did you know the river only runs through the bottom?
He said, Yeah.
I said, Sir, the top is higher than where the river enters the canyon by 4,000 feet.
Rivers don't flow uphill.
There is no delta.
Where is all the mud that washed out?
There is no way that river made that canyon.
Grand Canyon is a breached dam, a spillway that washed out.
There was a lake probably for some length of time after the flood.
It got too full and all that water went roaring through there.
Probably carved that canyon out in a couple of weeks.
Not millions of years.
Absolutely impossible for that river to have made that canyon.
We cover lots more on that on videotape number 6 of our series.
But they tell the kids, the Colorado River made this canyon slowly over millions of
years.
I'm sorry, that is stupid.
That can't possibly be true.
They need to learn the facts.
Charlie Lyle, back in 1830, he was a lawyer from Scotland.
Somebody calculated one time that if all the lawyers in the world were laid
end-to-end around the equator, we would all be better off.
Charlie Lyle hated the Bible.
In 1830 he wrote this book right here.
Oh, I got it on the table.
I picked up the wrong one.
Principles of Geology.
Here it is on this table.
Charlie Lyle wrote this book in 1830.
In this book he mocked at Scriptures.
He hated the Bible.
You can see it mocking all through here.
In here he and other fellows back in that time, Cuvier, Stratus Smith, and some of
these guys, they invented the geologic column.
How many of you have ever heard of the geologic column before?
They say each of the layers is a different age.
You know, Cenozoic, Mesozoic, Paleozoic, Archeozoic, all them Zoic boys.
They gave each layer of rock a name, like maybe you saw in the movie Jurassic
Park, and an age, and an index fossil.
This was done in 1830, way before there ever was a carbon dating, or
potassium-argon dating, or lead-208, lead-206, uranium-235, uranium-238.
It didn't exist, folks.
The dating text didn't exist.
They just made up these numbers out of the clear blue sky.
The geologic column is the Bible for the evolutionists.
It can only be found one place in the world, the textbooks.
There is no geologic column, and they know it.
This fellow says, if there were a column of sediments, unfortunately, no such
column exists.
The geologic column is a hoax.
It does not exist.
It is stupid.
Those layers cannot be different ages.
If the geologic column were all in one place, it would be 100 miles thick.
It didn't happen.
By the way, if the geologic column were true, if you look at the site of Grand
Canyon and see all these thousands of layers, why are there no erosion marks
between the layers?
Don't you think if one layer sat there for 10 million years waiting for the next one,
it would rain once or twice?
No erosion marks between the layers.
Interesting.
Something to consider anyway.
Those layers were all deposited very rapidly.
And I think we can demonstrate that scientifically.
If you take a jar of dirt, put some water in it, shake it up, and set it down,
it will settle into layers for you automatically.
It just takes a few minutes.
It is called hydrologic sorting.
The gravels go to the bottom, and then the sands, and the silts, and the clays.
It will sort just like that, folks.
Go home and do it with a jar.
You will see what I am talking about.
Years ago I was preaching in Union Center, South Dakota.
Union Center is right there.
It is not even on the map.
There are 40 people in the whole town.
38 of them came to church.
I don't know where the other two were.
They showed up later, I guess.
The preacher said, Hey, Breithofen, let's go down to Rapid City, South Dakota.
They've got a museum down there with a bunch of dinosaur bones.
I said, all right, I like dinosaurs.
Let's go.
So we all drove down to the museum.
The guy had met us at the door.
He said, would you like me to give you a tour?
We said, that would be great, sir.
The first place we stopped on the tour was the geologic time scale.
The big chart.
They got it behind glass so the kids can't touch it.
You know, this is holy, sacred.
And the guy said, now boys and girls, this layer of rock right here is about 70
million years old.
My daughter was 12 at the time.
She raised her hand.
She said, mister, how do you know that layer is 70 million years old?
He said, well, honey, we tell the age of the layers by what kind of fossils we find
in them.
They are called index fossils.
Oh, she said, thank you, sir.
We walked around the other side of the dinosaur and we're standing over here.
And the guy said, now folks, these bones you're looking at are about 100 million
years old.
My daughter raised her hand again.
She said, mister, how do you know those bones are 100 million years old?
He said, honey, that's a good question.
We tell the age of the bones by which layer they come from.
She said, excuse me, sir, but when we were standing over there, you told me you knew
the age of the layers by the bones.
And now you're telling me you know the age of the bones by the layers.
She said, isn't that circular reasoning?
I thought, wow, a chip off the old block.
That guy had the strangest look on his face.
It was almost as if he were thinking.
He looked at my daughter.
He looked at me.
I wasn't about to help him.
I thought, wow, this is going to be good.
Here it is.
He looked back at my daughter.
He said, you know, you're right.
That is circular reasoning.
I never thought of that before.
Folks, geologic column is a joke.
It doesn't exist.
It's all based on circular reasoning.
We can demonstrate that clearly.
Get our video number 4 if you want more information on how it's all based on
circular reasoning.
I'll just give you a couple of quotes here.
This guy says, the rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks
more accurately.
Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning if it insists on using only
temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent.
You have to use circular reasoning to get it right.
Well, that's stupid.
And you don't need to be too bright to figure out that's stupid.
This geologic column contains limestone scattered all throughout the geologic
column.
I like to ask him the question, I say, fellows, you have limestone
scattered all through this column.
How do you know the age?
It's all limestone.
I mean, if I handed you a piece of limestone, how would you know if it's 100
million year old Jurassic limestone, or a 600 million year old Cambrian
limestone?
I mean, how would you tell the difference?
There's only one way they can tell, by the index fossils.
That's how it's done, folks.
That is stupid.
Because those fossils don't count for anything, which we'll see in a minute.
They tell the kids, each of these layers is a different age.
100 million, 200 million, 300 million, real impressive, huge numbers.
Now, Charlie Darwin did not like round numbers.
He wanted to be more precise.
He said, the Weldian deposits are 306,662,400 years old.
Now, okay Charlie, I think that's stupid.
Those layers are not different ages, folks.
All over the world we find petrified trees standing up, running through multiple rock
layers.
Now if you get a petrified tree standing up, running through different rock layers,
I don't think it's smart to say those layers are vastly different ages.
Petrified trees in the vertical position.
They find them all over the world.
Here is one from Alabama.
Came out of a seam of coal, through 20 feet of rock, into another seam of coal.
They found about three dozen of them, I think, in that one little coal mine,
one little area, while they were digging the coal out.
Petrified trees standing up.
Cookville, Tennessee, they found a bunch of them.
This one is 30 feet tall, standing up.
Joggins, Nova Scotia is famous for their petrified trees standing up in the
vertical position.
All over the area there, folks.
Those trees did not get slowly covered by the sediments over millions of years.
They would rot and fall down.
Sometimes the petrified trees are upside down, running through many rock layers.
Scientists estimate at the bottom of Spirit Lake in Mount St. Helens,
there are now 20,000 trees that were blown out by the volcano.
Thousands of them are standing up in the bottom of the lake, already buried 15 feet
deep in mud.
None of them grew there.
Those trees are going to petrify.
It only takes a few years to petrify a piece of wood.
In the laboratory it can be done in 24 hours.
We cover lots more on how fast things can petrify in videotape number 6 of our
series.
They dug up a guy, they buried this doctor in Tennessee.
Fourteen years later his wife died.
When they went to dig the grave, water soaked into her grave.
They said, oh, we can't bury grandma there.
So they dug a hole on the other side, water soaked in.
So they dug a hole and buried grandma somewhere else.
Then the kids got worried about grandpa.
So they went and dug up his grave.
The arms had rotted off, but the rest of the body had petrified in 14 years,
turned to stone from water running through the coffin.
I've got tons of material on how fast things can petrify.
Those layers are not different ages.
They all formed in one big flood in the days of Noah.
To tell the kids the layers are different ages is stupid.
That just simply is not true.
So what about carbon dating, potassium-argon dating, rubidium-strontium
dating, lead-208, lead-206, uranium-235, uranium-238?
Well, we'll cover that after a quick break here.
I'll show you some ways that this is just stupid.
That's not a way to tell the age of anything.
We are going to give you some more evidence that evolution is stupid.
Now, if you want to believe in it, that's perfectly fine.
I don't care what you believe in.
But the devil is laughing at you for believing in that.
He has you fooled, and he is laughing at you.
If you want to believe you came from a rock, well, you just enjoy yourself.
But that's not science.
God made this world.
God loves you.
God has a plan for your life.
And if you don't want it, well, that's your business.
But God loves you, and He wants you to come to heaven.
And if you'd like to find out how to go to heaven, come see me.
I'll be glad to show you.
I'm going.
It's not because I'm good.
If I get what I deserve, I'm in serious trouble.
But I've been forgiven by the blood of Jesus Christ.
You can have the same thing.
After the break, we'll show you some more things that make evolution stupid.
Coming up next.
Thank you.
In the early 1950s, actually the late 1940s, they invented carbon dating.
We're going to explain a little bit about radiometric dating and how it's supposed
to work, and then show you that it does not work.
The Earth's atmosphere is about 100 miles thick, and we're also protected by a
magnetic field.
Radiation from the sun and from the stars, mostly from the sun, goes right through
that magnetic field, some of it does, and hits the atmosphere and produces
carbon-14.
Carbon-14 is radioactive.
Normally carbon is atomic number 6, which gives it an atomic weight of 12.
But this nitrogen, which is right next door to carbon, gets struck by radiation
and it turns it into carbon-14.
Now carbon-14 is unstable.
It is radioactive.
It's always breaking apart.
And you can hear it, like with a Geiger counter, you know, click, click,
click, click, just like uranium, because it's decaying.
They've discovered it decays at a fairly consistent rate.
About half of it will decay every 5,730 years.
Which means if I gave you a pile of carbon-14, 5,730 years later, half of it
would turn back to nitrogen.
The rest would still be carbon-14.
Theoretically, it's a random event, but that's probably how long it would
take.
During photosynthesis, plants are breathing in carbon dioxide.
And this radioactive carbon is mixed in with the regular carbon.
The plant doesn't seem to know or care if it's getting radioactive carbon or regular
carbon.
It just takes it right in.
Animals eat the plants and make it part of their body.
Probably during your lifetime you have either eaten plants or you've eaten
animals that have eaten plants.
How many have done that before?
So you probably have radioactive carbon-14 in you.
Now theoretically, what you have in you should match whatever is in the
atmosphere.
About the same percentage.
Because the plants are always breathing this stuff in.
And the animals are always eating the plants.
And we are always eating the plants and the animals.
So it should pretty much stay in balance.
It is assumed the ratio of radioactive carbon-14 to normal C-12 in the atmosphere
would be the same found in living plants and animals.
That is an assumption, but it's a reasonable assumption.
The atmosphere today is 0.0000765%.
Not much.
That's how much carbon-14 it has in it.
When the plant or animal dies, it stops eating.
Or breathing.
How many knew that already?
So whatever it had in it begins to decay.
Since half of it will leave in 5,730 years, all you have to do is check to see
how much C-14 is in it.
How much C-14 is in the atmosphere.
And if it's only got half as much, it's been dead for 5,730 years.
Sounds great, but it doesn't work.
In theory, it never goes to zero, but it goes from a half to a fourth to an
eighth to a sixteenth to a thirty-second to not much.
After four or five half-lives, you can't measure it.
So if anybody ever tells you, we know the earth is millions of years old because of
carbon dating, you can rest assured they don't have a clue what they're talking
about.
Because if it worked, it would only work for 30,000 or 40,000 or 50,000 years
maximum.
They compare the amount of C-14 in the object being dated with the amount
currently in the atmosphere and estimate how long the object has been dead.
It sounds good, but there are some assumptions that mess everything up.
Assumption number one, has the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere always been the
same?
Has it reached equilibrium?
This is an interesting problem.
If I told you to fill a barrel with water, but I drilled holes on the other side of
the barrel, while you're filling it, it's leaking out.
At some point, it's going to be leaking at the same speed you're filling,
and that point is called equilibrium.
You will never fill the barrel past that point unless you plug the holes or fill
faster.
See, it's filling and leaking at the same time, sort of like your checkbook.
You put it in and it leaks out.
Hopefully, you want to at least be at equilibrium.
If less than that, you're going to be in trouble eventually.
See, if your outgo exceeds your income, your upkeep will be your downfall every
time.
Well, they say if you took a brand new planet Earth and stuck it out in the solar
system, the sun would start producing C-14.
It would start decaying also right away.
And it would take about 30,000 years to reach this equilibrium point.
Well, Willard Libby and others who invented Carbon-14, University of Chicago
in 1947-53, he got a Nobel Prize for it in there somewhere.
He said, well, it would take 30,000 years to reach equilibrium.
He said, well, we know the Earth is millions of years old.
Mistake number one.
So we can ignore the equilibrium problem.
Ah, mistake number two.
The Earth's atmosphere has still not reached equilibrium.
There is more C-14 now than there was 10 years ago.
Which proves the Earth is less than 30,000 years old.
Which I could have told them just from reading my Bible.
See, if an animal is still alive, be it plant or animal, it should have
about 16 clicks per minute on your Geiger counter per gram.
If it is zero years old.
Actually, zero years dead.
If it is getting only 8 clicks per minute, then it is 5,730 years old.
If it is giving you 4 clicks per minute, it has gone through two half-lives.
It is 11,000 years old.
If it is 2 clicks per minute, it is 17,000 years old.
This is how they date it.
So if you are getting 2.5 clicks per minute, you just find the point on your
graph, and draw the line over, and determine the age.
Sounds real simple.
But it doesn't work.
If we had walked into a room and found a candle burning on the table.
And I asked you the question, when was it lit?
You said, I don't know, Mr. Hovind.
It was burning when I got here.
Okay, well then let's do some empirical science.
Empirical science is things we can test and measure and observe and test.
Not theoretical, I mean empirical.
We can measure it and weigh it.
Let's measure the height of the candle.
Suppose the candle is 7 inches tall.
Who can tell me when it was lit?
Okay, nobody.
Let's do some more empirical science.
Let's measure the rate of burn.
Suppose we determine it is burning an inch an hour.
When was it lit?
Billions of years ago.
You are going to have a hard time telling me unless you are willing to make some
assumptions.
How tall was it when it started?
Oh, we don't have any idea.
Has it always burned at the same rate?
Oh, we don't know that either, do we?
You find a fossil in the dirt.
You can measure how much C-14 is in it.
Very accurately, by the way.
And you can measure how fast it is decaying.
That is just like measuring the height of your candle and how fast it is burning.
Now, when did that animal die?
You don't have a clue.
Unless you are willing to assume that the C-14, when it was alive, was the same as
we have today.
And assume the rate of decay has always been the same down through history.
You can't prove either of those.
Living mollusk shells were carbon dated at 2300 years old.
Hello, they are still alive.
Freshly killed seal, carbon dated at 1300 years old.
Shells from living snails, carbon dated at 27,000 years old.
That is stupid.
He is still alive.
I know snails are slow, but at 27,000 years he would be dead.
One part of a mammoth is 29,000 years old.
Another part is 44,000.
One part of a demon was 40,000 years old.
Another part was 26,000.
The skin in the wood next to it is 9,000.
The lower leg of a mammoth is 15,000 years old.
The skin is 21,000.
Two mammoths found side by side in Alaska.
One is 16,000 and one is 22,000.
Which number is right?
Living penguins, carbon dated at 8,000 years old.
Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the western hemisphere,
were dated by accelerator mass spectrometer.
All eleven dated about 5,000 radiocarbon years.
Lava from a 1801 Hawaiian lava flow was 1.6 million years old.
Well, hello is not even 200.
Another volcano erupted in Hawaii in 1959.
When they dated the lava it was 8.5 million years old.
At least potassium argon is dating for that, not carbon.
Mount Etna in Sicily, I climbed Mount Etna when I was over there some time ago,
erupted in 1972, 350,000 years old.
Mount St. Helens built a new lava dome in 1982.
They dated it, got numbers from 350,000 to 2.8 million.
It's not even 20 years old.
Here's what you ought to consider about carbon dating.
Samples of known age, it doesn't work.
If it's a sample of unknown age, it is assumed to work.
That's stupid.
In the last two years, an absolute date has been obtained for the Gandong beds
above the Torrential Beds.
It has the very interesting value of 300,000 years, plus or minus 300,000
years.
Boy, they nailed that one right on the head, didn't they?
See, back in 1770, George Buffon said the earth is 70,000 years old.
In 1905, the official age of the earth was 2 billion.
When they went to the moon, they said the earth and the moon are 3.5 billion years
old.
3.5 billion, dated with potassium argon dating.
Now they're telling the students it's 4.6 billion years old.
Let's see, that means the earth is getting older at the rate of 21 million years per
year.
That's 40 years per minute.
Aging rapidly, folks.
That's stupid.
All they do is add more time to make the theory look more reasonable.
Long ago and far away.
And when you prove it couldn't happen, they say, well, it was longer ago and
farther away.
Then they're going to tell the students one of the evidences for evolution is
embryology.
Now there aren't too many things about this whole theory that make me angrier
than this.
So I'm going to try to stay calm and cool and collected while we discuss this.
Ernst Haeckel, an embryology professor at the University of Jena in Germany,
loved evolution theory.
When Darwin's book came out, Ernst Haeckel read that book the next year and said,
Wow, this is a great theory.
All we need now is some evidence.
Nine years later, they still had no evidence.
So Ernst Haeckel decided to help Charlie out.
He was an embryology professor of the study of animals before they're born.
You know, the different embryos of all these different animals.
He made drawings that were fake to make them look alike.
The students are taught we have evidence from development.
I don't think so.
The similarity between early stages in development of many different animals
helped convince Darwin that all forms of life shared common ancestors.
Actually, Darwin considered this by far the strongest single class of facts in
favor of his theory.
This is stupid, folks.
I'll show you.
This textbook says, The human embryo growing in the mother has gills like a
fish.
Those little folds of skin are not gills.
Those little wrinkles under your chin when you're growing up later develop into bones
in the ear and glands in the throat.
They never have anything to do with breathing.
I've seen folks that have five or six chins and they can't breathe through any
of them but the top one.
Those are not gill slits.
Ernst Haeckel, though, said the turning point in his thinking was when he read
Darwin's book, 1860.
Haeckel took a drawing of a dog and a human embryo and he changed them to make
them look exactly alike.
His fake drawings looked almost identical.
On top are the real drawings and underneath are Haeckel's fake drawings.
He lied, folks, intentionally.
He made huge charts of his posters of his drawings of these embryos and traveled all
over Germany.
And just about by himself converted the Germans to believing in evolution.
Which later led to the obvious question, well, if evolution is true, then maybe one
of the races of people has developed farther than the rest.
Which, by the way, is a subtitle to Charlie Darwin's book.
You can look at it for yourself.
The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored
Races in the Struggle for Life.
See, Darwin was a racist.
We cover lots more on that on video number 5.
That one is politically incorrect.
You don't want to watch that one.
Trust me.
On top are Haeckel's fake drawings and underneath are actual photographs of what
he claimed he was drawing a picture of.
Now either he is a lousy artist or he is a liar.
Well, it turns out he is a liar.
He was convicted of fraud by his own university.
Proven to be a fraud.
But guess what?
Haeckel's fake drawings are still used in textbooks in your state right now.
Here is a textbook used at the University of West Florida, in the middle of the
Bible Belt.
It has only been proven wrong 125 years ago.
I know it takes a while to get textbooks up to date, but that ought to be plenty of
time.
That is stupid.
Those are not gill slits on the embryo.
Here is an Irish textbook.
I was just there a few months ago.
It says the embryo has gill slits.
That is baloney.
This one says the embryo has gills.
Glencoe Biology says they have gills.
Proven wrong 125 years ago.
This biology textbook says the human embryo has gills.
Here is this Tim Berra writing his book on the myth of creationism.
And he mentions the gills are evidence for evolution.
You are only 115 years behind, Tim.
Miller is still teaching it 125 years after it was proven wrong.
I debated Miller on the radio, on a St. Louis radio station one time.
Here is a college textbook.
Still teaching the kids the embryo has gills.
This one says, it shows the kids a 5-6 week embryo, but it says by 7 months the
fetus looks from the outside like a tiny normal baby.
But it is not.
It is not a baby at 7 months.
Excuse me?
A whole bunch of kids born at 5.5 months survive 34%.
That is stupid to say it is not a baby at 7 months development.
Maybe you heard about the woman who had surgery on her baby before it was born.
They cut the mother open, cut the uterus open.
The 5-month-old baby, 5 months in development, reached out and grabbed the
doctor's finger.
It is not a baby, huh?
If it is not a human being, what kind of being is it?
If it is not alive, why is it growing?
Why do they keep that in the textbooks?
Well, that is the only way to justify abortion.
They want you to think it is not a human yet.
It is just a fish with gills.
No, it is a human the instant it is conceived.
And abortion is murder.
Plain and simple.
We cover lots more on that on my videotape number 4.
You don't want to watch that one either.
Then they are going to tell the kids, we've got evidence for evolution because
dinosaurs turned to birds.
This is stupid.
This guy says, Because dinosaurs are alive as birds.
Well kids, in case you don't know, there are a few differences between a
dinosaur and a bird.
You don't just put a few feathers on them and say, come on man, give it a try.
It won't hurt too bad.
That's stupid, okay?
Dinosaurs did not turn to birds, okay?
Somewhere along the line, while his front legs are developing into wings,
they are going to be half leg, half wing, which means he can't run and he
can't fly yet.
He is going to have a hard time, isn't he?
No, dinosaurs did not turn into birds.
That is stupid, okay?
They say, we've got proof that they did.
Archaeopteryx, which means ancient wing.
That is supposed to be evidence for evolution.
It is in just about every textbook I've seen dealing with this topic.
Archaeopteryx is supposed to be evidence.
Here is a 1999 textbook.
Archaeopteryx was proven to be a fraud in 1986.
So this author is 13 years behind the time.
Archaeopteryx means ancient wing.
They are going to say, see boys and girls, he has got claws on his wings.
Yeah, so?
Twelve birds today have claws on their wings.
The ostrich does, the Watson does, the Turaco does, the Ibis does.
So what?
It is kind of unusual, but twelve birds have it.
They are going to say, well he has got teeth in his beak.
That proves he has got a reptilian feature.
Well now, wait a minute.
Some reptiles have teeth, some don't.
Some mammals have teeth, some don't.
Some fish have teeth, some don't.
Some of you have teeth, some don't.
That doesn't prove a thing, all right?
Alan Fiduccia is considered one of the world's experts on birds.
He believes in evolution.
University Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
He said, Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earthbound
feathered dinosaur, but it is not.
It is a bird, a perching bird.
And no amount of paleobabble is going to change that.
It is a bird.
By the way, even by their twisted thinking, birds are found in layers lower
than Archaeopteryx.
If you find fully formed birds in rock that you think is 130 million years old,
then Archaeopteryx at 65 million years old cannot be a missing link, can it?
Because birds were already here.
Even with their dumb geologic column, it doesn't work.
We cover lots more on that on Video 4.
They say, bird feathers evolve from scales.
Well, that is stupid.
In the first place, they come from different genes on the chromosome,
OK?
Developed totally different.
A scale is a hard wrinkle in the skin.
They attach to the skin very differently.
Feathers are incredibly complex, folks.
Unbelievably complicated.
They are both made from the same protein, keratin.
And that is where the similarity stops.
So what?
Battleships and forks are both made of iron.
It doesn't prove they both evolved from a tin can.
It proves the engineers using the same material for different functions.
And God used keratin for fingernails and hair and scales and feathers.
So, same designer.
That is what it proves.
A lot more on the bird evolution in the book, Icons, if you want to get that.
Then they tell the kids about the peppered moth.
Yes, boys and girls.
Somebody in England went around and counted the moths on the trees.
It must have been a government project.
They discovered it was 95% light moths and 5% black.
Well, so the story goes, they burned coal in the factories.
The trees turned black and the moths changed to black moths.
Because when they counted them again, they said they found 95% black and 5%
light.
Actually, the whole story is a lie.
It never happened.
After 40 years of watching, they found two moths on the trees.
Two total.
Out of 40 years.
So they glued dead moths to the tree to take a picture for your kid's textbook.
Then he wanted to get a picture of a bird eating a moth.
So he put some moths in the refrigerator to calm them down.
So they got nearly frozen.
Then he put them on the tree and they couldn't even hang on to the tree.
So he warmed them up on the hood of his car.
Put them out there on the tree and the moth was staggering around trying to warm
up.
And a bird ate one.
He got a picture.
Wow, proof of evolution.
It's a lie.
It didn't happen.
Even if it were true, dark moths and light moths were there at the beginning.
And dark moths and light moths were there at the end.
The ratio of population might have shifted, but the story wasn't true.
So, it doesn't prove anything.
That's stupid.
That's not evidence for evolution.
They tell the kids, we've got vestigial structures.
Now a vestigial structure is something you don't need anymore.
They'll say, boys and girls, you have an appendix that you don't need anymore.
That's a vestigial structure.
That's proof of evolution.
Well, excuse me, you do need your appendix.
That is stupid.
The appendix is part of your immune system.
If your appendix is taken out, you can still live.
But it increases your susceptibility to quite a few diseases.
You can live without both your legs and both your arms and both your eyes also.
That doesn't prove you don't need them.
Does it?
There are no vestigial organs.
And even if there were, that would be the opposite of evolution.
That's losing, not gaining.
This textbook says, boys and girls, whales, and many organisms here,
like a whale, retain traces of their evolutionary history.
For example, the whale retains pelvic and leg bones as useless vestiges.
I'm sorry, that's not true.
This one says, just imagine whales walking around.
It's true.
These little bones right there is what they are talking about.
Just imagine him walking around.
I can see it now, can't you?
All you need is a good imagination and some LSD and you'll be able to see that
whale walking in real life.
This textbook says, the whale's pelvis is evidence of its evolution from four-legged
land-dwelling mammals.
Well, that is stupid.
Those bones in the whale's abdomen are essential to hold muscles that support the
reproductive system.
Without those bones and those special muscles, the whales cannot reproduce.
This has nothing to do with walking on land.
It has to do with getting more baby whales.
So the author that wrote this is either ignorant of his whale anatomy and should
not be writing a book about it, or he is a liar trying to push a theory
off on our kids.
Here this one says, whales once lived on land.
Whales were not always sea-dwellers.
Modern whales show skeletal evidence of previous existence on dry land.
Buried deep in a whale's hip muscles are two small bones, all that is left of the
whale's pelvis and hind legs.
That's stupid.
The male and female bones are very different on whales.
Check your whale anatomy and tear that page out of your book.
It has no business being in there.
This textbook says, humans have a tailbone at the end of the spine that is of no
apparent use.
I was debating a guy in North Alabama.
He was the president of the North Alabama Atheist Association or something like
that.
He got up and he said, folks, we've got evidence for evolution.
Humans have a tailbone they no longer need.
When it was my turn, I got up and I said, Mr. Patterson, I taught biology and
anatomy.
I happen to know there are nine little muscles that attach to the tailbone,
without which you cannot perform some very valuable functions.
I will not tell you what they all are, but go read your grace anatomy and you can
figure it out.
I said, however, Mr. Patterson, if you think the tailbone is vestigial,
I, Kent Hovind, will pay right now to have yours removed.
Bend over.
That is stupid, folks.
The tailbone is not vestigial.
This one says, the coccyx, that's the tailbone, the small bone at the end of the
human vertebral column has no present function.
And is thought to be the remainder of bones that once occupied the long tail of
a tree-living ancestor.
I was taught when I went to school, a man used to have a tail, but he lost it
because he didn't need it.
I thought, didn't need it?
Have you ever thought how handy a tail would be?
Have you ever come to the door with two sacks of groceries?
Wouldn't that be nice, man, to be able to grab that door and walk right around and
get in?
Lost it because we didn't need it.
Man, you could drive the car and tune the radio knob and hold a Coke at the same
time.
We are going to tell the kids that lobe-finned fish show evolution.
Yes, boys and girls, during the Devonian period, 410 million years ago,
there were fish with lobe-fins.
What that means is a short arm and then the fin grows.
Well, that's stupid, ok?
The lobe-finned fish are still alive.
They are called the coelacanth.
And when they found the first coelacanth in 1938, people didn't believe it.
They said it can't be true because they died millions of years ago.
When they finally proved, yes, they are still here, all they said was,
Wow, they survived for millions of years.
It never dawned on them to maybe question the whole theory.
It never dawned on them.
When Dr. Roy Mackle went to Africa and did expeditions on dinosaurs still alive in
the African swamp, the University of Chicago microbiology professor,
Dr. Roy Mackle, wrote this book.
He went over there twice and interviewed folks who had seen living dinosaurs.
People who had never seen a white man.
When he showed them the Apatosaurus, they said, Yeah, that is Mokilium Bembe.
He lives out in the river.
He is not friendly.
Don't get close.
Dr. Mackle said, Fellas, that is a dinosaur.
They have been dead for 70 million years.
The natives said, We are sorry, we didn't know about that.
All we know is we see them out there once in a while.
So Dr. Mackle gets back, writes this book, and says, Folks, there are still some
dinosaurs alive in Africa.
Then he says, It is amazing they survived for 70 million years.
Never will cross his brain that maybe your basic theory is wrong.
That thought will never enter his mind, I don't think.
It ought to.
Lobe-finned fish are still alive, folks.
They tell him trilobites are good index fossils for rock that is 600 million years
old.
Well, that is stupid.
There is a human shoe print where a guy stepped on and squashed a trilobite.
How could a human step on a trilobite?
If they are 500 million years ago.
One guy said, Maybe aliens visited the planet and stepped on a trilobite.
The trilobite had the most sophisticated eye ever found in nature.
It is one of the first animals to evolve, and it has already got the most complex
eyeball.
I don't think so.
The whole thing about index fossils is stupid.
There aren't any index fossils.
The graptolites are the index fossil for 410 million year old rock, and yet they
are still alive right now in the South Pacific.
They tell the kids that dinosaurs are index fossils for 70 million year old
rock.
Folks, dinosaur blood was found inside the bone.
Don't you think it is going to decay in less than 70 million years?
There is enormous evidence that man and dinosaurs have always lived together.
We cover that for two and a half hours on video number 3 of our Blue Series of
Tapes.
Gene Thomas, missionary friend of mine, was in the Congo Swamp for 42 years as a
missionary.
He said, I had two pygmies in my church that killed and ate one.
Yes, dinosaurs are still alive.
California, 1925.
This thing washed up on the beach.
It is called California's Nessie.
It laid there on the beach and rotted away.
Here is a guy behind it with a rifle.
In the front you can see the critter's head.
Neck going off to the right.
The neck was 20 feet long.
One atheist wrote me a letter and said, Hovind, you are so stupid.
Don't you know that was a whale?
Show me any neck on a whale, would you please?
No, I think dinosaurs have always lived with man.
They were called dragons for most of history.
People killed most of them.
There could be a few still around.
It wouldn't affect me at all.
I don't think there are a lot of them, but there could be a few still out there.
They changed the name in 1841 to dinosaur.
That is all that happened.
Man exterminated most of them.
They mention it in the Bible.
We cover all that in video number 3.
They are going to tell the kids, we have got evidence for evolution.
It works by natural selection.
Well, yes, natural selection works.
But evolution is based on two faulty assumptions.
Number one, they say mutations make something new.
That has never been observed.
And natural selection makes it survive.
That has never been observed.
That sounds good theoretically, but it has never been observed.
Mutations happen, there is no question.
Thousands and thousands of mutations happen.
But even guys like Pierre Grosse will say, no matter how numerous they may be,
mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.
They are only scrambling existing information.
They are not adding anything new.
Here is a five-legged bull.
That is a mutant.
There is no new information added.
Doesn't the bull already have the gene code to make a leg?
It just built one in the wrong place, that's all.
This is not new information.
This is scrambled information.
That is not new.
Here is a short-legged sheep.
He is the first one the wolf is going to catch.
Go boys, go.
Here comes the wolf.
Oh, Herman did not make it.
Here is a two-headed turtle.
That is a mutant.
Not ninja, but he is a mutant.
He is going to freeze first winter.
Nobody makes a double-necked, turtleneck sweater.
I've never seen one.
I've been looking.
See, a mutation is scrambling information that already exists.
You can take the letters from the word Christmas and get all sorts of different
words.
Scrambling them up.
But you never get Xerox, Zebra, or Queen.
The letters are not available.
And a mutation does not give you new information.
It scrambles existing information.
This textbook shows the kids a four-winged fly.
Look what it says now kids.
You've got to be careful or you'll be tricked on this one.
Normal fruit flies have two wings.
This mutant has four.
This rare mutation, like most mutations, is harmful.
Look what it says.
Beneficial mutations are the raw material for natural selection.
Why didn't they show us one?
Why did they show us an example of a bad mutation and tell us that good ones is how
it works?
Show me a good one.
You know why nobody has ever shown a good mutation?
Because nobody has ever seen a good mutation.
One professor I was debating said, I know a good mutation.
He said, People in Africa that get sickle cell anemia cannot get malaria.
Wow, that's like saying, If you cut off your legs, you can't get athlete's foot.
Yeah, you're probably right.
But that's not a beneficial mutation.
They tell them evolution and natural selection go together.
This textbook says natural selection causes evolution.
That's stupid.
Natural selection doesn't cause any evolution.
Natural selection is a conservative process that keeps the species strong.
That's all it does.
That's all it can do.
It has no creative properties.
Nature can only select what there is to select from.
If I said I'm going to go around the world, I'm going to try to raise a race of
people that are over 12 feet tall.
So everybody under 12 feet tall, we're going to kill them.
Year after year, we kill everybody under 12 feet tall.
Well, there's nobody to select from, is there?
Natural selection can only select what there is to select from.
It's a conservative process.
If you worked in a factory that produced cars, and your job was to check for
defects, you know, kick the tires, slam the doors, etc., drive it around,
and you caught every single mistake, and you rejected it, how long would it
take that process to change the car to an airplane?
You say, it will never change it.
That's my point.
Natural selection is like a quality control.
It makes sure the bad ones don't survive.
But it's not going to change it to something else.
Survival of the fittest does not explain arrival of the fittest.
And by the way, survival of the fittest is what is called a tautology.
Kids, there's a big word.
You can learn this.
You can use this one on your brother.
A tautology is a sentence that means nothing.
You can say, oh, you're speaking in tautologies.
I'll show you how it works.
You say, professor, why did it survive?
I say, oh, because it's the fittest.
You know, survival of the fittest.
Oh, how do you know it's the fittest?
Because it survived.
I see.
Is that the way it works?
That's exactly the way it works.
That's stupid, folks.
Actually, it's not survival of the fittest.
If a whale goes through a school of fish and eats 80% of them, it's survival of the
luckiest.
I mean, if a snake crawls into a bird's nest and eats 3 out of 4 eggs,
does the snake select the weakest of the birds to eat?
There's still an egg, man.
He's going to eat them all.
Then they do the thing with the fruit flies for the kids.
They'll say, boys and girls, we raised flies in the laboratory.
And we nuked them and microwaved them and x-rayed them.
And we got these flies to have mutated babies.
We got flies with curled wings.
They fly around, bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz, couldn't go anywhere.
They got flies with no wings.
What do you call that?
A crawl?
Can't fly.
They raised all these mutated flies in the laboratory and said, you know what,
folks?
Every fly we got was worse off than grandpa fly.
Yeah?
So?
So they tell the kids, you see, this proves that flies have evolved as far
as they can go.
No, this proves you are messing up with perfectly good flies, OK?
God made them right and you are messing them up.
Now leave them alone, all right?
This guy says, we've got proof for evolution.
Because flies in the north have wings 4% larger than flies in the south.
That's proof we all came from a rock.
That's stupid, I'm sorry.
Then they tell the kids, boys and girls, today you are going to learn to think
critically.
Watch this sentence here carefully.
Some kid is doing this for homework tonight.
Boys and girls, do you think humans are still evolving?
Now what kind of question is that?
That's one of those questions like, have you stopped beating your wife yet?
Well, if I say yes, I'm admitting I did.
If I say no, I'm still doing it.
Go back and look at the original question.
Do you think humans are still evolving?
Doesn't that question assume that evolution has happened?
What if a kid doesn't believe in evolution?
How is he supposed to do his homework tonight?
That question does not teach him how to think critically.
That teaches him what to think, not how to think.
That's a Soviet style, indoctrination type question.
And the textbooks are full of them.
They are not learning how to think.
And when the kid gets done with this course, he is going to think.
He knows how to think.
But he doesn't.
He knows how to be told what to think.
Brainwashing at taxpayer expense.
Quite a few lies in the textbooks covered in this one.
We have a lot more in video number 4.
Adolf Hitler said, you let me control the textbooks, I'll control the state.
What is in these books anyway?
There is a lot of good science in there, but there is some poison.
Professor Wilson at Harvard University said, As were many persons from Alabama,
I was a born-again Christian.
When I was fifteen, I entered the Southern Baptist Church with great fervor and
interest in the fundamentalist religion.
I left at seventeen when I got to the University of Alabama and heard about
evolution theory.
One year of college destroyed his faith.
Philip Wentworth said, When I went to Harvard in the fall of twenty-four,
I was not only a Christian, I was a candidate for the ministry.
Then for four years I underwent a process of mental readjustment which shook my
little world to its foundations.
Through it all, one thing was clear to me.
If I could reconcile religion with intelligence, I knew that I could go on
into my chosen career, fortified by the experience.
If I could not, every consideration of honor would compel me to make other plans.
In the end, I gave up the ministry.
Scott wrote me a letter and said, Dr. Hovind, until I went to college my
faith in God was sound.
My college history class helped destroy that faith.
I started to doubt the Bible and God's Word.
I even started to doubt that Jesus was truly God's Son and that He died and rose
from my sins.
My best friend showed me your tapes and I was in awe of what I saw.
Everything I thought I knew about life was changed.
Praise God, people will sit home and watch a video that you will never get to come to
church, especially men.
If they are sitting at home holding the remote, there is this feeling of power
that surges through their body.
How many know what I am talking about?
Now come on, be honest, okay?
That is why we purposely leave my videotapes un-copyrighted.
Copy them and give them to your friends.
Man, get them saved.
Seventy-five percent of the kids from Christian homes that go to public schools
are going to lose their faith after one year of college.
Seventy-five percent.
Professor Bonar said, Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.
The theory has helped nothing in the progress of science.
It is useless.
Malcolm Muggeridge said, I am convinced the theory of evolution, especially the
extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the
history books of the future.
It is a joke.
And it would be a joke if it were not for the tragic results.
How many kids are taught this thing every day and believe it, and it destroys their
faith?
Adolf Hitler was a strong believer in evolution.
He thought the Jews were an inferior species and needed to be eliminated for
the good of humanity.
Joseph Stalin was an evolutionist.
Trotsky was an evolutionist.
Paul Pott from Cambodia was a strong believer in evolution.
We cover lots more on that in video number five.
Scientists will go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life for great
conmen.
The story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.
In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.
Evolution is a shell game.
Have you ever seen those shell games where they put the pea down there and they put
the three shells on it and the guy tries to get you confused?
You know, he messes them around.
Evolution is like a shell game.
If you ask the biologist, where is the best evidence for evolution?
He will say, oh, it is in geology.
I debated Dr. Pigliucci.
It is debate number 12, I think, of my series out there, of the red series
of tapes.
Those are debates.
I said, Dr. Pigliucci, you have gotten $650,000 in grant money to study evolution
of plants.
You have been teaching a course on the evolution of plants for 30 years.
What is the best evidence of evolution you are aware of?
And he said, the evolution of whales.
You are a botanist telling me the evolution of whales is your best evidence?
It is always this way, folks.
The geologist thinks the anthropologist has the evidence.
The anthropologist says, oh, no, we don't have it.
The biologist has it.
It is a shell game.
The only problem is there is no pee under any of them.
Nobody has the evidence.
It is a joke.
Sir Arthur Keith was selected to write the foreword to Darwin's book when it was
republished in 1959, because he was a strong believer in evolution.
Arthur Keith said, evolution is unproved and unprovable.
We believe it because the only alternative is special creation.
And that is unthinkable.
You are not even allowed to think that maybe there is a Creator.
The only alternative...
He is right, by the way.
The Russian atheist astronomer came to America and spoke at one of the
universities.
And he started off his speech, he said, folks, either there is a God or
there isn't.
I thought, boy, this guy is brilliant.
He nailed that point right on the head.
I have to give him credit for that one.
And then he said, both possibilities are frightening.
I thought, wow, that is a good statement.
You see, if there is a God, we better find out who He is.
And find out what He wants and do what He says.
If there is no God, we are in trouble.
We are hurtling through space around the sun right now at 66,000 miles an hour,
and nobody is in charge.
That is a scary thought.
It is real simple.
The Bible says, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
The Christian view of history is very simple.
God made the world in six days, just like He said He did.
And that explains all the symbiosis relationships.
How can certain animals and certain plants require each other?
Which one evolves first?
There are zillions of symbiosis relationships that cannot be explained by
evolution.
The pre-flood world was very different.
The people lived to be 900 years old.
We cover that in video number 2, why they lived to be 900.
Or you can check out my website and see them right there, DrDino.com.
During this time when people lived to be 900, reptiles grew to be huge.
See, reptiles, even today, never stop growing.
Reptiles grow all their life.
So if a reptile lives to be 900 years old, he is going to get real big.
Dinosaurs were big lizards that lived with Adam and Eve.
And then Noah took dinosaurs on the ark.
People say, dinosaurs on the ark, they are kind of big, aren't they?
Well, the big ones were big, but the little ones were little.
And Noah was 600 years old when he built that boat.
I bet he was smart enough to figure out, you don't have to bring the biggest ones
you can find.
Bring two babies.
Just be sure to get a pink one and a blue one.
That will be important later.
After the Flood was over, people killed most of the dragons, as they were called.
That is why there are legends of dragons all through history.
Plus the climate killed a lot of them.
People don't live to be 900 anymore.
We cover all that in video number 2.
And there might be a few still around.
Christians don't need to worry about dinosaurs.
They are part of the normal creation.
They are mentioned in the Bible.
It's all there, folks.
We just have to get a good biblical view of history.
God created this world.
See, it is real simple.
Let's summarize here.
God made the world.
It didn't evolve.
Evolution is stupid.
There are hundreds more reasons we can give.
We are going to run out of time, though.
But if God made the world, He owns it.
That means He makes the rules.
Like the Ten Commandments.
We are guilty of breaking His rules.
I'll show you.
Rule number 9.
Commandment number 9.
Thou shalt not bear false witness.
That means don't lie.
How many of you have ever lied before?
Come on.
Don't do another one.
Put your hand up.
Don't give me that pious look.
Come on.
Number 8.
Don't steal.
How many ever stole something?
You already told me you are a liar.
Now come on.
You don't have to read very far to realize we are guilty.
Which means we are going to be punished.
Or find a substitute.
See I can't substitute for your sins because I have a whole bunch of my own.
But Jesus Christ is not only willing, He is able.
He wants to take your place.
He wants to pay for your sins.
It is real simple.
February 9, 1969.
My friend said, Kent, you are a sinner.
I said, well you can say that again.
He said, you deserve to go to hell.
But Jesus died for you.
He wants to save you.
If you will ask Him, He will save you right now.
And I bowed my head and said, Lord, I am a sinner and I deserve to go to hell.
But would you please forgive me and save me.
And I have God's promise.
I am going to heaven.
Hey, if you died today, where would you go?
You ought to think about it, because you will be dead for a long time.
It does not matter how long you live, you are going to be dead longer than that.
Do you know George Washington died 200 years ago?
And he is still dead.
How much longer does he have to go?
You are going to be dead for a long time.
All you get in this life is a little bitty dash between two dates.
Just a little beep and it is gone.
What are you going to do with your dash?
Let me give a suggestion to you.
Give the whole thing to Jesus.
Say, Lord, you may have it.
The whole thing.
One time a little boy saw Jesus preach and he had a little snack lunch.
Five biscuits and two fish sticks.
He said, here Jesus, you can have the whole thing.
Jesus said, thank you, son.
Everybody sit down, please.
5,000 men, plus women, plus children.
We can assume probably 20,000 people.
Jesus started breaking those fish sticks and bread up and making fish sandwiches.
And started passing them out to the disciples.
And everybody sat down in the grass and they passed them out, and passed them out,
and passed them out, and passed them out.
When they got all done, everybody was stuffed.
You want another fish sandwich?
Oh, no, I am stuffed.
He said, okay disciples, gather up all the fragments.
They got 12 baskets full of fragments left.
That little boy came home from the meeting.
Mama said, hey son, how did you like your lunch?
Oh, Mom, you won't believe it.
Was it good?
Oh, it was good, Mom.
Do you have any left?
Hey, disciples, come on in here, would you please?
See, he decided to give it all to Jesus.
Now, he ended up getting fed himself.
He is one of them 20,000 that got fed, you know.
He could have kept it and got fed, or he could give it away and get fed.
It worked the same either way.
If you could learn to give your life away to Jesus, you will get a wonderful life.
Plus, it will bless lots of others.
Some of you ought to quit worrying about knocking that dumb ball into the hole in
the dirt, and start worrying about who is going to heaven or hell.
And you ought to quit worrying about getting a fancier car and a fancier house,
and start worrying about who is going to heaven or hell.
Maybe God gave you that good job so you can give some money to missionaries.
Not so you can build a bigger, fancier house.
You know what we need in this country?
We need a Christian Barney.
How many kids in this town, tomorrow, are going to be taught evolution?
On Discover Channel, Nature Channel, National Geographic, textbooks,
library books.
How many?
Thousands of them?
And they are going to use dinosaurs, aren't they?
Little four-year-old kids get a book.
Hey boys and girls, dinosaurs lived millions of years ago.
Isn't that what they say?
Why don't one of you get yourself a purple costume?
Get all the neighborhood kids together.
Hey boys and girls, hehehe.
We are going to sing now.
God loves you, God loves me, He wants you in His family.
If you'll ask Him now, He'll come into your heart, and of His family you'll be
part.
Shouldn't they learn that instead?
Folks, somebody's got to reach these young kids.
You ought to get some videos or something.
My material is not copyrighted.
You can use mine any way you want.
Hey, what on earth are you doing for heaven's sake?
What are you doing for the Lord?
I saw this tombstone the other day at a cemetery.
Wayne Strickland, atheist.
Hasn't died yet.
He said, I'm a busy man, don't have time for this.
I'm sorry, Wayne.
You're going to have lots of time here coming up soon.
Claims to be an atheist.
Interesting.
The Bible says, the fool has said in his heart there is no God.
Did you know God doesn't believe in atheists?
Think about that one.
Where would you go if you died?
Now, if you're not sure you're going to heaven, you ought to give your heart to
the Lord and get saved.
If you are saved, you ought to find something to do for the Lord.
If you want to get any of my video materials, they're not copyrighted.
You can get a 15-hour seminar on creation.
Lots of material on stuff on creation, evolution, dinosaurs.
Get some of the debates or the red tapes or the Miscellaneous Topical Series.
We want to strengthen your faith in the Word of God.
If you're here tonight and you're not saved, or if you're watching this video
and you're not saved, give me a call.
I'll be glad to help you meet the Lord.
Our website is DrDino.com Phone number in Pensacola, Florida, 850-479-DINO.
We like dinosaurs around there.
If you come through Pensacola, stop and visit Dinosaur Adventure Land.
If you get a chance to go on the cruise, we'd love to have you come on the cruise.
We'll talk more about dinosaurs and creation and evolution.
Thank you so much for joining us tonight.
After 15 years of teaching high school science, Dr. Hoeven began Creation Science
Evangelism in 1989.
We are a ministry that is dedicated to providing tools which will help you combat
the evolution philosophy that is destroying the faith of millions every
year.
The first tool Creation Science offers is their powerful, life-changing video
series.
Over the last 12 years, well over a million videotapes of Dr. Hoeven's seminar
have circled the globe.
They are reaping a harvest of souls for the Kingdom of Christ, as well as helping
restore the faith of many thousands confused by the evolution propaganda to
which they've been subjected.
These videos are available in English, Russian, French, Spanish, Japanese,
and Sign Language.
The Age of the Earth, first of the seven-part series, teaches that God
created the universe about 6,000 years ago in six literal days.
Would this be true?
Can it be scientifically proven that the Earth is not billions of years old?
This tape gives solid scientific evidence that the Earth is young and that the Bible
is scientifically accurate.
How did the environment of the original creation differ from ours today?
And how would this allow men to live over 900 years?
Can Christians have a good explanation for the existence of dinosaurs?
Could some dinosaurs still be alive today?
These and many more questions are covered in the second and third part of the
series.
Evolution has permeated public school textbooks with false and fraudulent
information.
This video exposes nearly 30 lies commonly found in textbooks.
Every public school student, teacher, and school board member needs to watch
part four of this series.
Find out if you have been lied to in your textbooks.
Discover the terrible difference evolutionary beliefs have made in the
past, as well as in recent history, in our video number five.
Dictators throughout time have used their evolution-based philosophies to
rationalize their brutal actions.
Learn how evolution propaganda is being used today to prepare people for the new
world order.
This is just a taste of all the information the 17-hour seminar series has
to offer.
Also available are college courses that expand on the seminars in great detail.
For those who can handle a more confrontational atmosphere, our debate
series is just for you.
I said now, Mr. Patterson, if you think the tailbone is vestigial, I, Kent Hovind,
will pay to have yours removed.
Dr. Hovind has debated a wide range of atheists and evolutionists all over the
country.
You're sure to find these 12 debates very exciting.
These would be perfect to present to that scientifically-minded person who likes to
argue their point.
Our topical series includes exciting topics like, Why Evolution is Stupid,
Public School Presentation, Children's Video about Dinosaurs, The Bible and
Health, Leviathan, the Fire-Breathing Dragon, and many more.
Creation Science also offers a variety of visuals, like the Longevity Chart,
which presents the entire lineage of Adam to Joseph as given in Genesis.
It's exciting to see exactly how many generations were alive at the same time.
Hundreds of books on a variety of subjects, videos on incredible creatures
that defy evolution, t-shirts, fossils, and more.
Make Creation Science Evangelism the one-stop shopping center for your creation
material needs.
Our two websites, www.drdino.com and www .dinosauredventureland.com, provide our
second tool for evangelism.
Drdino.com is packed with lots of information, from charts and graphs to
articles and frequently asked questions.
This is also where you will find more information on all of the products CSE has
to offer.
Dinosauredventureland.com is great for the kids.
They can play lots of fun games and see unusual rides and activities located at
Dinosauredventureland in Pensacola, Florida.
Thousands visit our sites regularly to gain insight into God's creation.
The third tool available to you is the live seminars conducted by Dr. Hovind and
his son Eric.
Since 1989, Dr. Hovind has held seminars and debates in hundreds of churches,
schools, and universities in 49 states and 30 foreign countries.
His fast-paced, illustrated seminars cover diverse topics, such as evidence for young
earth, how long Adam lived, dinosaurs living with man, where races came from,
radiometric dating, and much more.
Our fourth tool is the new, exciting Dinosauredventureland.
Many thousands have come from all across America to visit our museum, creation
bookstore, science center, and theme park where God gets the glory for science.
Our unusual swings, rides, and activities each have a science lesson as well as a
spiritual lesson.
And captivate everyone from age 4 to 94.
To order material, find out how to schedule a seminar at your church,
or get more information about Dinosauredventureland, write to us at
Creation Science Evangelism, 29 Cummings Road, Pensacola, Florida, 32503.
Or call us at 850-479-3466.
Or toll free in the U.S., 877-479-3466.
877-479-3466