Well, you heard Dr. Sharp, Thomas Sharp, talking about how evolution is a great
deception, and then you heard Ron Cooper talking about why creation is relevant.
What I want to do is talk to you about, well, show you what I believe is about to
happen, that evolution is going away.
At least, Darwinian evolution is going to fall apart, and I believe it's happening
this year.
I used to say 5 to 30 years, then I said 2 to 5 years, and at the beginning of this
calendar year, I started saying the end of this year.
And I'm going to show you.
You see, I am a science teacher.
I've been teaching science since 1980.
I taught high school chemistry and biology and earth science and general science,
physical science.
I taught college level biology and chemistry.
Then I spent six years training people how to teach science.
That is my doctoral degree.
I'm Dr. J for a reason.
My students named me that, by the way.
I'm not very good at basketball, so that wasn't because of the basketball
player Dr. J.
They named me that.
But I'm an expert in science teaching.
That's what my doctoral degree is.
And as an expert in science teaching, it behooves me to keep track of what's
going on in the world of science.
Now, what I want to share with you tonight is a little peek into what's going on in
the world of science.
Now, Bible-believing Christians, most of them don't even believe people
like me exist.
You know, someone highly trained in science and a science educator.
And there are many... how many of you have heard of the MRI machine?
Raymond Damadian invented that, and he's a creationist, believes just the
same as you and I.
Believes this book is actually true.
So what I want to do is show you a little something.
What's happening behind the scenes?
A little bit like in The Wizard of Oz, you know, where Toto's pulling at that
curtain, and he says, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!
And a great Oz has spoken!
You know, yeah, well there's a guy behind the curtain, and I want to show you that
guy tonight.
I want to show you some of the stuff that's going on in the world of science
that shows that the Bible, that book, is actually, and always has been,
right.
Take courage, young Christians.
Take courage, Bible believers.
I often say that if I was a liberal, people would say that what I do is called
empowerment.
You know, so what I'm going to do is empower you, encourage you, set you free
from the delusion that we're the dummies.
That's what they'll tell you if you believe this book straightforwardly,
then you're the dummy.
That's the mantra you'll hear chanted and shouted in your direction.
But it's not.
All Christians need is a little bit of encouragement.
Just a little bit of encouragement.
Now, little brother Garrett over here is wearing the little medallion.
You got the little medallion there?
I'm not going to make you take it off.
But, little medallion with one of my favorite verses where God tells Joshua
when he takes over for Moses, he says, you know, Joshua, all the days of thy life
there shall be no man able to stand before thee.
Only be thou strong and courageous.
Just be thou strong and courageous.
Three times God tells him, all you got to do is just be strong and courageous.
Then the people tell him, look, we'll follow you.
Just be strong and courageous.
That's what I'm telling you.
Just be strong and courageous.
In quietness and confidence shall be your strength.
The wicked flee when no man pursueth, but the righteous are bold as a lion.
Cast not away your confidence.
That's all the Christians need is a little bit of confidence and following in God's
wisdom.
Pray for wisdom.
Does any man lack wisdom?
Let him ask of God, who gives freely and it braideth not.
That's in James 1.5.
Just read that verse and you'll see.
So what I want to do is equip you with a little bit of knowledge and mostly
awareness.
What's happening behind the scenes with evolution right now?
It's falling apart.
Darwin's entire theory is falling apart in shambles scientifically.
It's got death smell all over it.
Oh, don't worry.
They'll invent something else just as godless as that was.
And I'm going to talk about that tomorrow night, what my predictions are,
and all I can do is guess.
But I'm not guessing about the stuff I'm going to show you tonight.
I'm actually telling you and reporting on what's happening.
I got the...
oh, I see you've already taken away the Fred Flint.
That's all right.
We'll just stay here.
Here lies old earth evolution, March 25th, 2005.
The reason I'm saying that evolution began its final death spiral in 2005 is this.
Next.
This article in Science News, which also the report appeared the day before in the
Journal of Science.
This was dated March 25th of 2005.
Old softy, Tyrannosaurus fossil yields flexible tissue.
Let's zoom in on this part.
Next.
It says here, this is the first report of flexible material from a fossil.
It's an upper leg bone of a T-Rex 68 million years ago, according to their own
dating techniques.
It said that using the extraction technique, Schweitzer, that's Mary H.
Schweitzer, and her colleagues subsequently recovered what appeared to be
blood vessels and osteocytes, or bone cells, from two other well-preserved
specimens of T-Rex.
They've also obtained bone cells from an 80 million year old hadrosaur.
That's the duck-billed dinosaur.
Look at the evolutionist response to this.
Cameron J.
Shizida, a paleontologist at the University of Western Ontario in London,
says this.
The state of preservation noted in the new study is improbable, but obviously not
impossible.
The reason he's saying this is because every good organic chemist knows protein
molecules can't last, even in a perfectly dry state.
And that's the best way.
You know that beef jerky and freeze-dried meats, they last the best, even in a
perfectly dried state, because water causes the amino acid bonds, the peptide
bonds, which are dehydration synthesis bonds, it causes proteins to rot and
disintegrate faster.
Even in a perfectly dried state, 10,000 years, 40,000 years tops.
Now, this hadrosaur had real bone cells, not petrified, the real cells,
with the real proteins left in them.
And it was a blood vessel.
This thing was like a dried up fish and worm.
You could stretch it.
It was still elastic.
The proteins were still intact.
And this 80 million years isn't just a little older.
It's not like 2,000 years longer than it's supposed to last.
That 80 million is exactly 2,000 times longer than 40,000 years.
How much longer?
They don't know.
They have no answer.
Real science, real science says that can't be.
It can't be that old.
But their answer?
Well, it must not be impossible.
We don't know why, but it must because evolution must be true.
And we know since evolution is true, and since that takes hundreds of millions
of years, the Earth's got to be billions of years old, you see.
Next.
Look at this.
This is a little cartoon.
I used some stuff from answers in Genesis too, Ron.
And here's a little cartoon by Dan Letha.
Scientists have discovered soft tissue in a T-Rex bone they say is 70 million years
old.
70 million years old, no way.
I can't get a turkey sandwich to survive three weeks.
And that's really true.
The same process should have happened.
I'm amazed that the T-Rex vein was preserved in that bone for 4,356 years
since Noah's flood.
Next.
This is Mary H.
Schweitzer at North Carolina State University, the one that discovered the
vein.
Here is the vein in the T-Rex bone.
Now, I got these pictures off the PBS Nova website, and to this day, this is two
years later, they are still saying the alleged vein with the possible red blood
cells in it.
Look at that on a T-Rex.
But since then, they've also, on a myosaur, the good mother dinosaur,
they've found a vein in a... what kind of dinosaur is that?
Triceratops.
We had more kids that answered quicker on that.
A triceratops, another vein with red blood cells.
These are not petrified.
They're not fossilized.
They're not mineralized.
These are the actual tissues.
Next.
They've also found, in the Moa, the extinct bird, which I think is about
10 million years old, and also, according to their dating systems,
this mammoth fossil, mastodon fossil, they found actual soft blood tissues,
blood vessels and things, and that's supposed to be 300,000 years old.
These things can't be, if the laws of chemical kinetics and the rate laws and
the rate equations for the degradation of proteins, which has been experimentally
demonstrated.
If these things are true, these things can't be that old, and they still haven't
figured out.
They've got some little stories they've tried to figure out, but mostly they're
silent.
Now what they've basically done, next, is turned Mary Schweitzer into sort
of a saint, saying, oh, well, she found this grand mystery, and isn't it
wonderful?
I'm sorry, but what they're basically doing is trying to make up, they're trying
to spin-doctor this thing.
It's like high schooler about to go to the prom, and that's the night that you get
this giant dime-sized zit right on your nose.
It's the prom night, where you go, yep, here I am at the prom, got this zit,
been working on it for weeks, testicle, look at that good one there.
See, that's what they're doing.
They're pointing out their greatest flaw, as though it's wonderful, and they think
that's going to distract us.
Brother Ray, who does the magic, isn't magic all about kind of getting
people to look one place, and you do something the other place?
Saw that movie, The Prestige, very interesting about that kind of stuff,
you know.
You've got to distract them over here while you're really doing something.
Well, anyway, that's what they're doing.
Next, well, there's more problems.
Recently, there's also, they've found soft tissues in a 10-million-year-old frog,
they found marrow in the bone, 400,000-year-old bear DNA in a tooth,
and 90-million-year-old muscle tissue, meat on the bone of the Santana raptor,
which was found in Brazil, supposed to be the ancestor of the T.
rex.
Now, I do not believe these things are that old.
That's how old they say they are.
But you just can't find this kind of stuff.
Neanderthal DNA.
Next, we just keep finding more stuff that couldn't be.
Why does this matter?
Because biochemical kinetic laws say proteins can't last more than 40,000
years.
Evolutionists, I just call them evos, ignore science laws and just say this.
Look at this, this is from the Smithsonian Magazine.
How many of you ever heard of the Smithsonian Museum?
Yes.
Smithsonian Magazine says, Schweitzer's work is just showing us we really don't
understand decay.
So we never got it right.
It's not that we haven't gotten this evolution thing right, it's we just didn't
get this decay thing right.
Look what it says, there's a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just
make assumptions about.
Like maybe evolution?
Next.
Well, so which should we trust?
The known laws of science, chemical kinetics, or the assumptions evos just
make so they can keep believing in Darwin?
Against the data, against laboratory proven laws of science.
Next.
This is even worse.
Last year, last October, just about a year ago, this grad student and her professor
at Ohio State, not far from here, over in Columbus, found, now this is a,
in formaldehyde, a pickled crinoid, because sea lilies or crinoids are lived
today, but crinoids also are found deep, deep, deep in the fossil record.
Well, that's because they live deep, deep, deep at the bottom of the ocean,
but forget about that.
But they're found deep in the layers of rock, and this one, the one that she
found, according to the rock layer it was in, was 350 million years old.
Look, we were talking about 90 million year old stuff before, now we're talking
350 million years old, and they found, they found complex organic compounds,
pigment molecules, kind of like the pigments in your hair, if you have blonde
hair or red hair, the pigments in your eyes, if you have green eyes or brown
eyes, pigment molecules.
Now, normally pigment molecules are proteins.
I emailed Christina O'Malley and asked her if they determined whether these molecules
were proteins or not, because I know proteins can only last 40,000 years,
even according to the wildest imagination, and she said, well, no, we haven't,
she emailed me, because we haven't determined that they're proteins yet.
Maybe she kind of caught a sniff of my email that I was a creation scientist and
didn't want to say anything.
But even if they aren't, they are complex, fragile organic molecules lasting 350
million years.
No chemical way.
Next.
Well, the evolutionists, how many of you have heard of Richard Dawkins?
Richard Dawkins, who wrote the book The God Delusion last year and started the
Blasphemy Challenge.
How many of you know the Blasphemy Challenge?
Okay, well, that's hideous.
Maybe you've seen it on the internet.
Well, this is something from his organization.
Look at this giant tidal wave of science just washing over this little dingy of
sort of the S.S.
Minow from Gilligan's Island, labeled creationism there.
That's the way they're trying to say we are.
But that's not the case.
You know, me thinks they doth protest too much.
The fact of the matter is, they're just trying to spin-doctor this whole thing to
make them look right when they're absolutely wrong scientifically,
and we're going to see more of this next.
Also, if they're so strong, if they're so right, then why can't we even talk about
it?
Look, in schools, hear no creation, see no creation, speak no creator in
public school education.
You ever wonder if evolution is such a great theory, and it's doing so well,
and it got such good proof, why is evolution the only scientific principle
that needs laws to protect it?
Why do they have to pass court cases?
We don't have to do that for the law of gravity, do we?
Where we demand that the law of gravity be taught properly in school.
You know, that's because it's obvious evolution is a myth, and the myth buster
is happening to it right now.
Okay, let's go next.
Now, some evolutionists have said, we just don't start teaching kids early
enough.
We don't teach evolution enough.
We don't teach it in enough college classes, we don't teach it to kids young.
Look at this, look at this, that's Dr. Seuss, look.
From fossils, dinosaur, teeth, eggs, and bone got stuck in the muck,
then that muck turned to stone.
These fossils are old, they are dusty and worn, because they were made long before
you were born.
Not hundreds of years, not thousands of years, but millions of years long before
you were born.
You see, they do start early.
My daughter, when she was in kindergarten, came home with a book saying dinosaurs are
millions of years old.
And many of you probably have stories of your younger kids, younger elementary
kids, first, second, third grade, coming home with stuff all about
evolution, how we came from monkeys, and monkeys came from fish, and fish came
from worms, and that's the grand story that does start early.
And I took my college classes even back in the 70s when I went to college.
Danielle, you're experiencing it now, but I experienced it then.
Every class, astronomy, geology, geography, biology, you know, even English
class evolution would come up.
Philosophy, religion class, it's taught everywhere.
They've had enough time, and it still hasn't worked for them.
Next.
This man here, I'm going to go backwards a little bit here, and point out something
that Richard Lowen said in 1982.
He is an evolutionist, he said this in Science Magazine, one of the two most
premier journals of science in the world.
He said this, natural selection, how many of you ever heard of natural
selection?
Okay, natural selection can weed out some of the complexity and slow down the
information decay that results in speciation.
How can decay result in speciation?
Ron Cooper was talking about how can you take a whole bunch of bad things from the
past, put them in a bag, shake them up, and expect good things to come out.
That's what Dr. Lowen is talking about here.
He is an evolutionist.
Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote
speciation, or the origin of species.
Where have you heard that before?
Origin of species.
Isn't that the title of Darwin's book?
It's the central idea of evolution, is that species can originate by natural
selection.
Dr. Lowen says it can't.
It is not, not, not a creative force, as many people have suggested.
The word select means what?
Give me another word for it.
Choose, or pick.
Yeah, natural selection can only pick from what's already there.
In 1905, Hugo de Vries said natural selection may explain the survival of the
fittest, but it cannot explain the arrival of the fittest.
And that's absolutely true.
Nice little thing to remember.
It has a nice jingle to it.
And here's another one.
Sahelanthropus chadensis is a fossil.
I'm going to get a little technical here with you, but I'll go slow and repeat
myself.
I'm a teacher.
I can do it.
We'll all be able to understand.
The Sahelanthropus chadensis was found in the country of Chad.
That's why it was called chadensis, back in 2002.
And it was considered to be the ancient brother, well, actually
great-great-great-grandfather of all monkeys and all humans, of all chimps and
humans.
That's the last time humans and chimps were the same thing.
It's the missing link, you see.
But look, that was 2002.
Look in 2006, just last year, Milford Walpuff of University of Michigan-Ann
Arbor said this.
We wanted to make sure we were absolutely accurate, but Sahelanthropus chadensis is
not a hominid at all, not in the hominidae family.
Some people are going to like this, and some people are going to hate it,
but it will stimulate more discussion.
Next.
This is the Sahelanthropus chadensis skull.
They have a pretty good skull, and it's very, very rare to find a good,
well-preserved skull of a human or a monkey.
And this, they said, is 7 million years old.
This is the chart, the way it looked in about 2002.
Dr. Ian Tattersall, an evolutionist who's well-known as an expert on Neanderthals,
submitted this chart here to the newspaper.
But there's the Sahelanthropus chadensis, which Walpuff and several others are now
saying is not in our family tree.
It's not the missing link.
But also, how many of you have heard of the Lucy fossil?
Sure, here's Lucy right here in the middle of our family tree, the Australopithecus
afarensis, because it was found in the Afar region in Africa.
And then right after her comes the Australopithecus africanus, also found in
Africa.
But look, she's about 3.5 million years old.
He's about 3 million years old.
She's like, according to this, 3.2, he's supposed to be.
They're a million years separated.
Problem is, he looks more like a monkey than she does, and it's a million years of
evolution.
I'm going to point out to this to you and prove it to you in a couple minutes.
Also, look at the skimpy evidence for Ardipithecus ramidus, Aurorantuginensis,
and Ardipithecus cadaba.
Actually, evolutionists themselves have been saying that not only is
Sahelanthropus chadensis not our ancestor, but these other things are the same thing
as he was.
In the same genus, all should be lumped under the genus Ardipithecus.
You see, we are Homo sapiens, that's genus and species name.
Homo sapiens genus species.
Ardipithecus cadaba genus species.
Ardipithecus ramidus genus species.
Evolutionists today, today, see I'm giving you up-to-date, brand new stuff.
This is going to scare science teachers all over the country who believe in
evolution.
It should darn well scare college professors who are just indoctrinating and
are not educating, they're not teaching, they're brainwashing into a mythology.
But if all these are really related, and this one is not our ancestor,
and none of them are, let's, okay, not yet, not yet.
Homo habilis, handyman, they've now put that as not in our family tree.
Homo ergaster is supposed to be the same thing as Homo erectus.
And Homo erectus, the new DNA studies are saying, had nothing to do with humans.
Never did, never will.
It's not the missing... and if it's not, and that's the same thing, then it's not.
And that's not, and they found these two actually in the same layer of the rock,
they have found both of these now, and that means, see I used to say that
habilis, handyman, evolved into Homo erectus or upright walking man,
and that evolved into us, and that was the story.
When I was in college, Neanderthal was our ancestor.
You know, the new scientific name for Neanderthal in all the textbooks now is
not Homo neanderthalensis, it's Homo sapiens neanderthalensis.
And we are Homo sapiens sapiens.
You see, they've now realized what we creationists have been saying all along.
Neanderthals were people too.
And these monkey things like Lucy was never a person.
Okay, let's get into some of this, I'll show you the proof I've got for all
these fabulous claims I've been making.
Oh, that one slide always comes up that way, even though I didn't put it in,
okay.
The fossil species found in 2002 in Chad has been named Sahelanthropus chadensis,
while others found at a Kenyan site in 2000 have been dubbed Auroran tuganensis.
All of these fossils are sufficiently similar that they should be included in
the same genus as Ardipithecus cadaver.
So the Auroran, the Ardipithecus cadaver, and certainly the Ardipithecus ramidus,
and the Sahelanthropus chadensis should all be in the same group.
They should be the same thing.
This was a news release issued by University of California, Berkeley in
2004.
Don't forget, the chadensis was found in 2002.
So, this is what I had just said to you.
Next.
That if this is not us, and all these are the same thing, then none of them are us,
or our great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandparents.
Next.
This is Donald Johanson, who discovered the Lucy fossil in 1974.
In 1995, look at what he says about these kind of missing link trees that we just
saw.
Nobody really places any great deal of faith in any phylogenetic tree.
Phylo means family, and genetic, you know, genetic family tree.
In other words, these human evolution trees, nobody places any great faith.
He said that 10 years ago, but 10 years after, 20 years after, he discovered the
Lucy fossil.
And I think that's true today.
You'll see what I mean in a minute.
Next.
Now, in 1925, the London Illustrated News ran this picture of the Nebraska man,
Homo Herald Kukii, named after Harold Cook, who discovered the tooth.
The tooth.
From one tooth, they got this whole construct.
You see the man, his body build, his musculature, his hair, the stone,
but the club he uses here, the tools, there's his wife preparing dinner,
all from a tooth.
This tooth was held up during the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee, I think that
was Dayton, Tennessee, as proof, proof of evolution during the Scopes
Monkey Trial, and flaunted in the face of William Jennings Bryant, who was the
defender of the creation side in that trial, and said, look, here from your own
home state, because Bryant was from Nebraska, proof of evolution, you see.
Well, of course, it wasn't long before they dug up the rest of the fossil,
found more teeth, realized it was an extinct pig.
That's not the first nor the last mistake.
Horrible.
Jump to the conclusion.
Jump the gun mistake evolutionists have made.
They continue to make them today.
Next.
Here's the Lucy fossil.
The reason it was so super famous, oh, I put little bathing suits on this.
This is from a college textbook, and I do this thing for homeschoolers,
and so we have to put bathing suits on them.
Anyway, this is the Lucy fossil that you hear so much.
Lucy is on tour of the United States right now.
How many of you knew that?
The fossil is actually on tour.
The reason the Lucy fossil was so famous was because they found 40% of the bones,
and that is huge.
They never find 40%.
And some people say, really, they have less than that.
But they did not find, they found a couple finger bones.
They did not find the feet.
They only found one of the hip bones.
And this does not give you a whole lot.
Even with what they've got, and even with their proudest, most evolutionist way of
looking at this, you've still got a monkey with one-third the size of brain as you
and me, only three feet tall, weighed 65 pounds, and had big giant molars like a
monkey.
This was a little chimp.
Now, it turned out that the hip bone was very, very chimp-like, and they just
ignored that.
They kept drawing her feet and hands like human feet and hands.
Exactly.
Even though they didn't know for sure.
The few fingers we had were curved.
Were curved.
You see, between your knuckle, your bone is straight.
Because you're human.
Between the joints in your toe bones, your toe bones are straight.
But in a monkey's, the finger bones are arched between the knuckles.
So you can get a perfectly round grip on a tree and swing that way.
Now, next, I'm going to get to that.
Notice the hand on Lucy.
I got this here from Dr. David Menton, who works over at Answers in Genesis.
The hand, finger bones are straight, and the whole hand is clearly human-like.
Dr. Menton's fond of saying, look at the intelligent look they give her face.
She's like, my, what shall I wear?
You know, I mean, this thoughtful look on this monkey's face.
Plus, notice, too, they show the whites of the eye.
And in monkeys today, their eyelids are different.
We don't see the whites to their eyes, but they'll usually do these wax,
the Science Museum reconstructions, showing the whites of the eye.
Showing it with a perfectly human hand in a human sort of position.
And really, that's just not the way it is.
Next, here's her foot.
Now, since then, they have found two bones, two little knuckles-like,
from the right foot of the Lucy fossil.
And I saw this at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in the McClung
Museum, hanging up in a little glass case as a Lucy skeleton mock-up, of course.
Now, the black bones are the ones that they haven't found, you know, but they
have the whole skeleton there.
The white ones are the ones they actually found, and that's being honest.
On the right foot are two little white bones.
They are curved, between the knuckles, just like a chimpanzee's.
As a matter of fact, more curved than a modern chimpanzee's bones.
Now, how many of you know a chimp can eat a banana with their foot?
How many of you know that?
Okay, yeah.
Because they have a thumb on their foot.
They don't have a big toe.
They've got an opposable... at the end of a chimp's leg is a hand.
They can... a chimp can, you know, whip their leg up, grab a branch,
and hang and eat three bananas at once, because they have four hands.
It's not like this.
The bone is... the bones are more curved than a modern chimp's, but on that
skeleton mock-up, all the black bones, all the other bones on the foot are all
flat.
The only two they found were curved, but all the rest are flat, like a human's.
And the same exact two bones on the left foot are flat, like a human's,
even though the only ones we found were curved, like a chimp's.
Denial, denial, denial.
Not science.
Not logic.
Not evidence.
Not good thinking.
And certainly, folks, not good scripture.
Next.
Here is a monkey's foot.
That is his foot, okay?
This is his hand.
Look at that perfectly round grip he can get because of those curved toe bones.
And this is his right foot.
This is not his hand.
It looks just like a hand.
Well, then who made these fossil footprints that are like millions of years
old?
Next.
Here's the problem, folks.
Here's a human foot with those straight toe bones that are flat.
Here's a chimpanzee foot.
You just can't walk good on that.
You also can't walk good with a hip bone that flares out like this, because the
muscles that help you walk have to go straight down from your flank here,
down to below your hip bone, onto your thigh, to help you stand on one foot,
keep you from falling over.
Monkeys don't have that.
They have to walk by throwing their weight side to side.
And so because of that, they can't walk like a human.
And Lucy's hip bone was flared like a chimp's.
But then who made these tracks?
Next.
See, these are the Laetoli footprints found a thousand kilometers away from the
Lucy fossil.
But it was in the same layer of rock as the Lucy fossil.
So evolutionists are forced, forced to conclude that if it's in the same layer,
it must be the same age.
And they said, look at that footprint.
It's perfectly human.
And notice there's a set of juvenile or young child tracks next to the human
tracks.
Now we creationists, of course, say, well, people and the Australopithecus
afarensis lived at the same time.
The Australopithecus afarensis, chimpy little creature, and us lived at
the same time.
A human made this footprint.
Well, the evolutionists said humans didn't evolve, you know, 3.2 million years ago.
So that couldn't have been a human.
Lucy must have made those footprints.
Therefore, we will always draw Lucy's foot like a human foot.
Just denial against the facts.
Next.
Well, who made those footprints if Lucy really didn't have human feet?
Well, just this past November, this is November of 2006, a year ago,
they pronounced this fossil and they did not find this in the rocks, okay?
That's a wax model mock-up of, next, the Lucy baby they're calling it,
the Dikika child.
It's supposed to be the same species.
It's 100,000 years deeper in the fossil layers, according to their dating systems,
than Lucy is.
But everyone's calling it the Lucy baby because it's supposed to be the same
species and it's smaller.
It's about a foot and a half tall, whereas Lucy's about, you know,
a little bit more than three feet tall.
And this is the artist's conception.
Look at those feet.
And I'm going to read the sidebar here.
Next.
Look at the foot.
It's just like a human baby's foot.
They're not, they don't really know, but they didn't, look what it says here.
The Dikika baby's big toe is still locked in the sandstone.
But if it shows Australopithecus afarensis babies lacked an opposable big toe,
in other words a thumb, on their foot, then the mothers might have had to rely on
others for food and protection while tending their babies.
They didn't know.
But they haven't told us in a whole year.
They really haven't come out with it.
I've seen some pictures, but they're not really saying what it means yet.
I think it shows an opposable thumb.
But just this past June, some evolutionists dug up a new
Australopithecus jaw, made special measurements on it, and pronounced it
wasn't the missing link after all.
After 30 years, we're going to say it wasn't ever the missing link.
Half the evolutionists are mad about this and half of them are on the wagon with
this.
But I think they're easing us into the idea that Lucy was never the missing link.
Almost everyone's heard of the Lucy fossil, it's taught in all the schools,
high school, college, all the time.
But guess what folks?
Oops, we were wrong.
It's falling apart.
Their story is falling apart.
I think they've announced these piddly measurements on the jawbone just to loosen
the lid on the jar for when they're about to say, oh, you know in June we did tell
you, now we found a thumb on the foot.
Now we know Lucy was a chimp all this time.
You see how science is right all the time?
This Time magazine of just last October, again just about a year ago, look at how
they compare a human baby with a chimpanzee.
Even the baby has a brain bigger than that.
And notice too how they don't have eyebrows and we have hair there and they
don't.
They have more hair all over their bodies and we don't.
And as a matter of fact, where we get the hair growing on our faces, guys,
that's where they're bald.
Also they have bald armpits and we have hair there.
It's just backwards.
Fossils don't come with hair.
They put the hair on there the way they want it.
They put the nose and the ears on there the way they want it.
They put the eyes on there the way they want it.
Whatever makes it look good for evolution, whatever is left to the imagination always
goes the evolution way.
And that's why these fossils recreations always look like monkeys.
I mean, missing link, monkey people.
Ape men instead of apes or men.
Of course there were only apes or men, never ape men.
I hope you're going to see that here soon.
How we became human.
They're always having some feature article in a big magazine, always pushing it.
Yeah, evolution's true.
Yes, and if you'll just click your heels together, you'll go back to Kansas and
everything.
Okay, I'm sorry, I got a little... If you believe in fairies then clap your hands.
Tinkerbell will get well if you clap your hands.
I'm so sarcastic sometimes.
It frustrates me.
As a science teacher, a purveyor of truth is what we're supposed to do in science,
not this kind of babble, not this kind of ridiculousness, not this kind of stuff
that just makes somebody look good.
Get some tenure.
Get some more federal funding or an endowed chairmanship, or just so they can
write more books about a theory that was never true anyway.
It's like the flat earth thing.
It was never true.
And it's falling apart now.
Next.
In this article here in October 9th of last year in Time Magazine, look what it
says.
Owen Lovejoy is Kent State.
He is the head of the anthropology department.
There's lots I could say about Dr. Lovejoy's escapades and hoisting evolution
on everybody, but look what he says.
He is dismissive about the claims that ancestors of chimps and humans interbred.
Now that's very interesting.
Do you realize that they study the DNA of chimps and humans a lot?
Try to compare them.
Seems like some of the chimp DNA is really a lot like ours, and some of it's not very
much like ours.
So they're saying the chimp DNA that's not much like ours is just way older,
back from the day.
But then why is some of the chimps DNA a lot like ours?
Like we were the same not too long ago.
Their answer is that after a couple million years, chimps and humans got back
together and started mating again and exchanging DNA, so some of it looks
recent, like we used to be chimps just recently, and some of it looks old,
like it was a long time ago that we used to be chimps.
That's what Dr. Lovejoy is a little... he's saying he didn't quite go for that.
Next.
Here is an article from the Washington Post just last year in May, talking about
this theory.
When the ancestors of human beings and the ancestors of chimps parted ways 6.3
million years ago, it was probably a long goodbye.
Says here, some members of the two groups seem to have interbred about 1.2 million
years after they first diverged, before going their separate ways.
And there's that Sahelanthropus chadensis, the earliest known missing link.
It says here, non-hybrids, found in chad, may belong to a line of non-hybrids that
were not human ancestors.
Dr. Wolpuff at Michigan and also the Washington Post says Sahelanthropus is not
our ancestor.
But it's in that family tree.
Next.
Here is a Newsweek of just last March, I mean of this March, just very recently,
just this year, the evolution revolution.
The new science of brain and DNA is rewriting the story of human origins.
Now look, every time they discover something new, they have to change their
story.
Every time a new fact in science comes up, they have to rewrite the evolution story.
Doesn't that tell you something?
When you are lying or believing a lie, when new evidence comes to light,
you always have to change your story.
That's a symptom of a dying theory.
Let's take a look at what it says inside this issue of Newsweek just this year.
Next.
It says right here, and I'm going to focus in on this part right here, the exhibit,
the new exhibit in the museum shows humankind's roots are sunk deep into East
African savanna.
There, the last creature ancestral to humans as well as chimps, in other words
our last great-great-great-grandfather, see evolutionists do not believe that
chimps evolved into us.
They don't believe chimps are our grandparents.
They believe chimps and us are cousins, that we have the same ancient,
ancient grandparents.
You see, we came from the same thing, not that we are the same thing or that
they gave rise to us, just that the same thing, like the Sahelanthropus tidensis or
something like that, gave rise to us both and we're just cousins of each other,
split off the family tree.
Well, it says here, the last creature ancestral to humans as well as chimps,
our closest living cousins lived, standing at a fork in the family tree as
momentous as it is contentious.
Contentious, you see, but important.
Now look what they admit, this year fossils never did resolve when the
lineages split.
Oh gee, I thought the fossils proved it all.
Lucy, Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, by the way you'll never hear about
Cro-Magnon again, they found out Cro-Magnons were people too, just like we
creationists have always been saying.
Oh, I thought all the fossils missing links proved evolution was true.
Uh-uh.
Fossils never did resolve when the lineages, but DNA might, that DNA stuff I
was telling you about, I'm going to talk a lot more about that tomorrow night,
DNA might.
See, human DNA and chimp DNA differ by only more than 1, no more than 1.2% and
DNA changes at a fairly regular rate.
Big deal, you know, we share 50% the same DNA as a banana.
All living things have similar DNA.
So what?
Of course monkey's DNA looks the most like us, their body structures look the most
like us of any other living thing.
That's why, not because we came from the same thing, but because they're the most
like us of anything else.
You see, but it says here DNA changes at a fairly regular rate.
Now there's the lie right there, they don't know for sure, but they're
saying it.
And that lets scientists use this rate to calibrate a molecular clock, whose tick
tocks measure how long ago a genetic change occurred.
That all is based on the assumptions, many assumptions, and we'll talk about
those tomorrow.
But let's take a look at some more of this stuff from this article.
Next, look at this.
DNA makes it clear that Homo erectus, upright walking man, was almost certainly
a dead end and not, as some scientists have argued, our ancestor.
The new data, the new information, the new studies, the fossils, the genetic
markers, and the analysis of those things, all are showing, one by one, all the
missing links have dropped out of the family tree.
There's only two left and I'll show you what they are.
Next, here you go, 1998 National Geographic, redrawing our family tree.
This is the Australopithecus Africanus, the one that came after Lucy,
Australopithecus afarensis, and is a million years of evolution later,
but it looks more like a monkey than Lucy.
How do they explain something like that?
It's exactly the opposite of what evolution says is supposed to happen.
Well, that doesn't bother them, though, that the prediction of the theory
and the data actually are opposite.
Doesn't bother them at all.
Look at what they say.
Next.
Here it is.
Here's a little mock-up of an Australopithecus afarensis male and
there's an Australopithecus Africanus male.
Look at the much longer arms and the much shorter legs.
Much more chimp-like.
Next.
And here's their excuse.
Here's their answer to this.
Africanus may have had longer arms and shorter legs, limbs that were more
chimp-like than afarensis.
If so, the implications are striking.
Oh, yes, striking if you believe in evolution.
Striking.
One possibility is that hominids underwent an evolutionary reversal between afarensis
and Africanus, perhaps to adapt to a more arboreal environment or lifestyle.
That's easy, folks.
Evolution just went backwards for a million years.
That's all.
Simple.
Simple answer.
Look, if that's the kind of double-stepping, you've got fancy
footwork, you double-speak and spin doctrine, you've got to do to make your
theory still sound smart, there's a problem.
You ought to smell a rat and look, look, look.
Find Christian folk.
Find Bible believers who just say, oh, I believe.
I don't know why.
I just believe you know the Bible.
I'm dumb, and I just believe the scientists are so much smarter,
but I just don't listen to them.
Look, they're the ones living in la-la land, not you.
And if you're watching something on the Discover Channel or on Animal Planet or
the Smithsonian or National Geographic cable channel, and they pull one of these
fast ones on you, and you go, oh, that doesn't sound right, but well,
they're so much smarter than me, I guess it must be right.
No, if it doesn't make common sense, guess what?
It doesn't make sense.
And these guys are buffaloing and snowing everybody, just throwing their weight
around.
Well, they've got the white lab coats, they've got the microscopes and,
you know, stuff like that, and the degrees, and, and they can use
polysyllabic words, you know, and so that does not make them smart.
PhD just means piled higher and deeper, okay?
This is somebody who had a little extra time and a little extra money and maybe
some persistence, and they got this degree.
I've got one, I can say this, I'm one.
I've met more PhDs who are fools, fools.
You know, the Bible says, you know, any, you know, any man like wisdom,
let him ask of God.
In Proverbs, it personifies guys.
The Bible personifies wisdom as a woman.
It does, Chris, it does personifies it as a woman, for some reason.
Anyway, but it does, and it says, come in all ye simple and learn wisdom,
for by me, princes rule and kings make decisions.
By me, you know, he, God, laid the foundations of the world, and I was with
him from the beginning, and I was his joy.
You see, wisdom is this mysterious thing, but whatever it is, the Bible says,
he that handleth knowledge aright is wise.
So it has something to do with using the knowledge you have and using it well.
That's something about wisdom.
You don't have to have four degrees like me and be a lifetime member of Mensa.
Yep, I'm in the genius club.
You don't have to be a Mensa member.
You don't have to have all these degrees.
You don't have to have encyclopedic knowledge of science.
What knowledge you have is enough.
Put it in the hands of God.
Pray when you're witness to someone.
Pray when you're talking to someone.
Be in a state of prayer, not just an attitude of prayer, be in a state of
prayer during those times.
Let God's wisdom speak through you.
Think not what you ought to say when you're brought before the rulers and kings
and magistrates, but the Holy Spirit will give you utterance.
Hey, that's the Bible.
It's either true or it's not.
I'm sorry, you know, we've been talking about this all night with Tom Sharp,
all night with Ron Cooper.
Either this book is real from Genesis to Revelations or just give it up.
Look, if you're going to say that the first few verses, yeah, that's just a
myth, that's just a nice story, we'll put little question marks after it.
Logic demands that now you must put question marks after every single other
verse in the book.
Why not?
It's either inspired by God or it isn't.
And then you should just give it up and go home.
Quit playing church.
I don't want to play church.
You know, I've staked everything on this being true.
Every single one of us has, but we're hedging our bets.
You know how God feels about hedges sometimes.
Read Job.
Well, anyway, that was my...
you did tell them I was going to preach, didn't you, Ron?
I'm afraid I started preaching a little bit.
Oh, and now my brother Brian's pushing me on.
Okay, well, here's something else in that same issue of Newsweek Magazine,
March 19, 2007, this year.
Here's the most up-to-date, this is this year, man, it's just a few months ago,
the most up-to-date version of the tree of life for humans that the evolutionists
have come up with.
There's the Sahelanthropus chadensis, that chad fossil that Dr. Wolpe at
University of Michigan Ann Arbor and that the Washington Post says is not our
ancestor.
There's Lucy, the one that really couldn't be because it's really like a chimp and
all these other problems are coming up.
That's the Australopithecus afarensis.
There's Australopithecus africanus, the one that's really a million years
later according to their layer dating system and is really more like a chimp.
And here's Homo sapiens.
Who's that?
Humans.
Us.
That's us.
Somebody here just... I said, who's that?
And someone here just raised their hand.
Just look at me, raise your hand.
Okay, that's me.
That's right.
There you are, sir.
This is Homo sapiens.
Now, we'll take a look at this again in a minute, but let's take a look at an
evolving theory next.
The new view, the new view.
You see, as fossil finds and DNA analysis have expanded our knowledge of our species
family tree, the old linear evolution model of monkey to man has been
supplanted.
What's the word supplanted mean?
Exchanged, replaced, yes, by one vastly more complex, which means we don't have a
clue.
It's bothering us.
That's what it means.
The old view, a 1935 museum display.
But isn't that the view that you see in every science textbook today?
Yeah, that's the one.
The old view.
Next.
Also, it says right here in the middle of this thing, it tells you the key to this
little map.
Next.
It says shaded bars indicate the period in which the species is known to have existed
based on fossil evidence.
Next.
Okay, remember what I told you that he said that Sahelanthus chadensis is not our
ancestor.
Okay, keep that in mind.
2006.
Next.
Here's the chart.
I'm going to point out to you that there is no connection between Lucy and her
whole group of friends and us.
You see the shaded bars, see the squares of white that are around them,
they found Homo erectus fossils in the top layer and the next layer down,
which they think is, you know, up to a million years ago and then up to
two million years ago.
This is, actually, where they've actually got data, where they found these things.
The dotted lines are their imaginations of how one could have evolved into the next
one.
That's what this is.
This evolved into that.
Look at that.
It just fades out from chadensis going to Lucy.
Aurorantuginensis fades out.
Ardipithecus ramidus went extinct.
The little knobs at the end mean they went extinct.
Homo habilis stops right there.
Handyman.
That's supposed to have been in our family tree, but look, there's no dotted line
even in their imaginations to connect Lucy to the line leading to us.
There's Neanderthals, a branch on the family tree.
Didn't turn into us.
It's not the missing link.
They were people.
They were ugly people, but they were people.
According to their bone structure in their face, we think they were probably ugly and
according to modern standards of beauty, okay, but they were people and they had
bigger brains than us.
Nobody knows what the so-called hobbit fossil is.
This one here they were saying was the same thing as this and this one,
Ergaster, they were saying was the same thing as this and these two now have been
found in the same lair.
That messes that whole story up and these were always monkeys.
Even the evolutionists will say these are extinct apes.
Their name is Paranthropus, you know, which means sword of person and those are
actually monkeys.
Look at the crest of the ridge on that skull, just like a modern ape has a ridge
on the skull.
Well, let's take a look at some more of this next.
This is evidence from National Geographic of 1997.
They don't even mention Homo rudolfensis on that chart we just saw, but Ergaster
and Erectus are supposed to be the same thing.
Many researchers do not regard blah blah blah and Ergaster as separate species,
but combining them instead with blah blah blah blah and Homo erectus.
Okay, so rudolfensis is even supposed to be the same thing as Homo habilis.
They had Kenyanthropus rudolfensis on there and they didn't even put Homo
rudolfensis on there.
So Erectus and Ergaster are the same thing.
And if Ergaster is not our ancestor, I mean Erectus is not our ancestor,
then neither is Ergaster.
It's just logic.
Next.
Here's what I told you, I've been telling you about this, but they found a Homo
erectus skull and a Homo habilis in the same lair this August.
This is very recent stuff, folks.
This means that habilis could not have evolved into Erectus and then into us,
because they lived at the same time.
Plus they also found that female Erectus skulls were super much smaller than male
skulls, like a giant gorilla.
I mean a female gorilla can be like one-third or one-half the weight of the
males, and we see these big size differences in other creatures,
but never in humans.
Not like that.
You know, men are a little taller, a little bigger than human females,
but not like that much of a difference.
And that's the way apes are.
These things were apes.
Next.
And this is what they said.
And this is one of my posts, actually.
This is longer than my normal posts.
Normally my posts that I send, that Ron Cooper was telling you about,
are so small you don't even have to scroll.
You can read it all without scrolling the screen.
But this was a big story, so I let out with all these sources and documentation
on all of this.
And it says, the new find implies that this was not as human-like as once
thought.
I put surprise.
But the implications... and the Evo's even knew for years that these fossils had this
problem of the different sizes.
But the implications were considered so profound that little was said about these
dates, pending more evidence.
So, you know, now they know.
Next.
Look at what this guy, the guy who led the team that found the two skulls in the same
lair.
This is like finding that your grandmother and great-grandmother were sisters,
you see.
And this other guy, Bill Kimble at Arizona State, says, we used to think Homo sapiens
evolved from Neanderthals, but now we know both species lived at the same time and we
did not come from Neanderthals.
And now we found out Homo habilis never gave rise to Homo erectus.
These discoveries completely changed the story.
Well, evidence will always change a lie.
Next.
Well, now here's that little chart.
Let me show you.
There's Homo erectus disappearing because of the DNA evidence against it.
Let's look in this entire group at what's left if we actually exclude all the things
I've shown you tonight that evolutionists themselves have said could never have been
our ancestors.
Next.
Okay, let's just look at things that are so chimp-like and so ape-like that they
couldn't be us.
Chadensis, Lucy, Rudolfensis, anything where these dashed lines here don't even
lead or connect to us at all are too chimp-y or too ape-y and the evolutionists
themselves have said forget it.
Now, Africanus is too chimp-y to be us.
It's too chimp-y to be Australopithecus.
But it's in the wrong order.
So I want to exclude it next because it's not in the right layer for the evolution
story to be true.
So that is true for Homo habilis because it's in the same layer as erectus now.
It's true for Africanus because it comes after a more human-like thing than it.
This is just a monkey that looked more like a person than this monkey.
That's all it is.
Next, how about things that are excluded because something else that's the same has
been dropped.
Now, Homo ergaster has been dropped because Homo erectus has been dropped and
now we know they were the same thing.
Also, Aurorantuginensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, Ardipithecus cadaba are all
dropped because Sahelanthropus chadensis is dropped and they are all the same
thing.
Next, how about things that are just plain human?
We're not sure what this little thing is, but I'm dropping it out because some
people think it's a human.
Neanderthals were human.
This includes Cro-Magnon.
Now, the only thing left on this brand new, most update evolutionary missing link
tree for humans, only thing left is Heidelberg man and Homo antecessor.
Homo heidelbergensis and Homo antecessor.
Now look, if the pattern continues, those like little dominoes are going to go
down too.
Either they're going to find out that Homo heidelbergensis, like Homo
neanderthalensis, is a human with a flat skull.
Maybe it was somebody who had some disorder or maybe they didn't find enough
fossils.
I mean, you can find people with that shape head alive today who are human
beings.
You know, all of our skulls are a little different from each other.
Neanderthals had a 200 centimeter cubed greater brain capacity than us,
you know, and so that doesn't work either.
So I'm predicting these two will go down, but it doesn't look too good at this
point.
If I was an evolutionist, I'd be real worried right about this time.
And they are worried.
That's why they're getting so mean.
That's why they're getting so panic-stricken.
That's why they just continue to just call names.
You're just stupid.
You're backward.
You're ignorant.
Guess what, you know, how many ever saw that old movie with Jimmy Stewart,
the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?
Yeah, I love that movie.
What did they try to do to discourage Jimmy Stewart's character, Mr. Smith?
He's there in Congress filibustering, and they kept telling him, everyone thinks
you're stupid.
Everyone thinks you're stupid.
And they wouldn't even let people read the newspaper.
They wouldn't let all those letters of support get to him.
They just told him, no one's behind you.
And that's what they'll tell you.
And that's the way Elijah felt too.
But remember, God said no.
Elijah says to God, I and I alone am left among the prophets of God.
And God says, no, I've reserved for myself.
How many?
You remember?
7,000 who have not kissed the hand nor bent the knee to bail.
You're in good company.
And so are you.
So are you.
Next.
Remember what Donald Johanson, the discoverer of Lucy in 1974,
said in 1995?
Nobody really places a great deal of faith in any human phylogenetic tree.
And I think now you see why.
Next.
Here's a funny thing here from Bruce Alberts, the president of the National
Academy of Science, a rabid evolutionist, said I think about the time of the trial
two years ago in the Dover court case in Pennsylvania.
He said, it's wrong to say that there is no way to bridge the gaps, the missing
links, except for intelligent design being true.
With a whole history of sciences that the gaps are always filled, I'm quite sure
that within a decade or two we'll understand where it came from.
He's talking about one particular fossil.
To give up now is totally ridiculous.
To give up now?
Look, they've had 150 years and the fossil record is so unmanageable.
They have so many fossils.
They have lots and lots and lots of fish fossils, lots and lots of amphibian
fossils, but no fish amphibians.
Lots and lots of monkey fossils, lots of human fossils, no human monkey
fossils.
You see, it's become more obvious they're never going to find the missing links.
I think giving up now, maybe they ought to throw in the towel right now.
Next.
And here is their story that bacteria turned into fish, turned into newts,
turned into reptiles, turned into little burrowing mammals and things that turned
into cavemen.
It turned into us.
That's their story and they're sticking to it, no matter how illogical or against the
facts it goes.
Next.
This is Dr. Jeffrey Schwartz from University of Pittsburgh.
He said this just this year in February in the journal Biological Theory.
The history of organic life is undemonstrable.
We cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology and our findings will
always be hypothesis.
That means an educated guess.
There's one true evolutionary history of life and whether we will ever actually
know it is not likely.
More importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions.
Well, I agree with Dr. Schwartz on that.
Whether we're dealing with molecules or anything else, I think Dr. Schwartz is
going to be one of the architects of the new evolution, which we're going to talk
about tomorrow.
Next.
I'm wrapping up here.
Look at what the Washington Post said in the year 2005.
Even today, against all scientific fact, more Americans believe the earth is 6,000
years old and that the biblical flood of Noah shaped the modern world than
subscribe to evolutionary theory and intelligent design all put together.
Well, isn't that a shame?
Isn't that just too bad?
You're not alone.
Be encouraged, Christian.
Next.
And here's, I don't know how many of you have been to their Creation Museum down in
Florence, Kentucky.
I've been a couple times.
Great place.
I want to show you a little political cartoon that they put up on this thing.
Next.
Here you go.
This ought to give you a little laugh.
Creationism Museum.
One believer and one non-believer.
Yeah, well, we actually outnumber the unbelievers.
And don't let people tell you you're stupid or outnumbered, because we're not.
In the scientific community, we are, because they teach evolution.
They teach atheism.
100% of the professors at Yale are atheists.
That's a survey recently showed.
And the one reason they asked, the most common answer was because of evil
in the world.
Well, they could use a little Bible study on that.
Next.
And of course, here's the Creation Museum in Florence.
Yep, a lot of people believe.
We have one museum in the world that teaches creation is true and evolution is
not.
And they're flipping out like we've started some kind of Nazi concentration
camp in Kentucky.
They really are.
The whole world is flipping out over this.
And all we're doing, you know, this place cost $27 million to build.
If you've been in it, you saw the place is worth $127 million.
Easy.
People donated their time, their talents, donated painting talents, drywall.
I know one of the guys that helped build that deck.
He's got a master's degree, but he also has good carpentry skills.
And it's just great.
Buddy Davis made a lot of their dinosaurs and stuff.
So that's it.
That's with us.
Evolution's fallen apart.
Not us.
The more data that comes through, the more certain we are that we're right.
And I'm going to tomorrow talk about what are the evolutionists going to do about
this situation?
What are they going to do in light of this?
Also want to point out that we have some videos out here for sale.
This one is for tearing apart a high school biology textbook bit by bit and
showing you each of the little problems and stuff they should not have in that
textbook.
And also I'll have a sign up sheet if you want to get on my email list and start
getting you even can get on a once a week option list if you like.
And my wife and I will be out at the hall and table.
Thank you.
God bless you.
Take care.
Be encouraged.
People of God.