Evolu-Mythos

By Stephen-H. Martin-Aherns
Introduction

The purpose of this essay is to explain very clearly three things. The
first is to understand that we are creations of a very intelligent designer,
who is all knowing, all powerful, and can do things perfect the first time.
The second point is that the Scriptures are true, scientifically, historically,
and verifiably. Third, is that we as humans are not perfect, and we are
misled easily. So much so that we have concocted the theory of evolution
as a replacement for creation, and the two can not co-exist. For our creator
is not the God of the dead, but of the living. With man came death, not
death that brought about man.
This essay will show that this theory of evolution does three things.
It will make people doubt God, it will make people deny God, and it will lead
people astray as to who and what God really is. For those who deny God,
this essay will bring them to an understanding of him. For those who
accept God, this essay will only strengthen their faith and understanding.
For those who think evolution could ever have been part of God’s plan, this
essay will make you uncomfortable, and demonstrate with crystal clarity,
that this is just not possible. It only takes one proof that is verifiable and
testable to undermine evolution theory. Herein are hundreds of points, that
can stand alone and individual, to show that evolution is not only a myth,
but the greatest lie we have ever been sold.
Evolu-Mythos
When we speak of science, it is mankind's accumulation of
facts concerning the formation and process of the known
universe. When we speak of A science, we are referring to
certain groups of individuals who have selected a section of the
universe to study. When you study A science, you are basically
trying to prove or disprove a theory about a certain aspect of the
universe through observation and experimentation, to be
demonstrated as fact. When this theory goes from A science to
Science, which means it is truth and that, it has been tested and
proven through scientific experimentation. Until that theory has
been proven, and can be demonstrated through scientific
observation, then it is still but a theory and A science, not truth,
not Science. When it is not proven, it is still a philosophy, a
belief, and if you are following and believing something that has
not, or cannot be proven, then you believe it by faith, and are
therefore your religion.
To use a term such as “Science Vs Religion” is just not right.
For one, if the religion is being studied through
experimentation, then that religion is A science, not proven, yet
not disprove either. Also, as when dealing with ancient
scriptures such as the bible, they can not be disproved through
scientific analysis, so the study of what they contain is still A
science. And there are many things in ancient scriptures and
texts that have been proven true Science many thousands of
years after that process of the universe had been theorized and
spoken of by our modern sciences, proving very well that they
understood. The bible as it is called has only been proven true,
time and time again, and that means that there is much truth in
it, historically, and scientifically. The problem is, people don’t
take it as Science, because they are taught that Science is what
has been theorized and accepted, not what has been proven. It’s
better in their eyes to not have to worry about some 'god'
watching over them and judging them. So the bible is just a
theory to most people, and a theory such as evolution comes into
play, accepted as Science even though it has not been proven.
This way, people get most of the truth, and assume the rest, such
as where we came from. An evolutionary genesis so to say. So
they have exchanged facts of truth, for assumption of truth
simply to retain comfort in themselves making up the rules.
As hard to accept as some may think, evolution is very
presumably impossible, proven by discoveries made in the
scientific community. If it has been proven wrong, it is not
Science and it should not even be considered A science. Science
has very little evidence to demonstrate the possibility of
evolution, but these people supporting this broad imagination
have obviously over looked and completely ignored many other
facts, (facts mind you, not evidence), that completely throws this
theory out the window. The facts have come to be known as
"Creation Science". It is Science in truth, rigor, experimentation,
and discovery, and it explains the universe in the only way
possible once the other theory has been disproved, and that is
that the universe was created by a designer, not the outcome of
billions of years of rampant unintelligible evolution. If you have
another theory about where we came from, where our universe
came from, then study it, turn it into A science, but don’t call it
Science until you prove that it’s true. Proof, not evidence. The
freedom to believe whatever a person wants to believe should at
least be based in facts and logic, not stubborn whim and
imagination. Evidence is like putting pictures in a fiction novel.
Yes you can imagine it in a realistic manner, but it is still a work
of fiction. The same applies to evolution. Just because it is
slipped into A science course, considered A science, and people
have demonstrated evidence to show how evolution could have
happened, is imagination that can not be proven, and should
never be considered Science or truth or fact.
What evolution should be replaced with in the minds and
textbooks of mankind is not up to me, but up to the facts of
Science. So many times have people believed waiting for a proof
that may never come. That is their error in logic. We should
instead believe only what has been proven true and by far,
evolution in its many forms has been proven wrong over and
over. It would never hold up in a court of law with Stephen
Hawking defending it and an eight-year-old child persecuting it.
Here are the facts.
Evolution is defined in six areas of study (A science):

1. Cosmic Evolution, the origin of time, space, and matter.

Explained by quantum physics as the "Big Bang" theory.
2. Chemical Evolution, the origin of elements heavier and
more complex than Hydrogen from the "Big Bang".
3. Stellar & Planetary Evolution, the origin and formation
of stars, planets, moons, super novas, etc.
4. Organic Evolution, the origin of life itself. How do you get
elements to bond and form what we call a living
organism?
5. Macro Evolution, the origin of species. How do you get
from that one living organism into many different
ones?
6. Micro Evolution, the origin of different "kinds" of
organisms. How do you go from "dog" to Great Dane,
Chihuahua, Wolf, and Beagle?

The truth is science is supposed to be based on what has

been observed and documented in its observation. The only one
of these six areas that can be documented, and is observable, is
the sixth, micro evolution. All the rest are theory, and not fact.
The first five are in truth religious beliefs concocted to explain
the formation of our universe over billions of years of evolution,
even though none of it is testable and observable. Something no
one seems to understand is that each of these 'evolutions' has
nothing to do with each other. Their defined processes are
completely unalike in the ways they happen, and the effects they
produce. So in just comparing them we see there is no
consistency, how can they be true? They each are defined by
their own evidence, none cross related, so how can we possibly
observe their processes to know it is true?
We know micro evolution happens because we look
different than our parents, they look different than their parents
and so on. A Chihuahua, a Saint Bernard, a Beagle, and a Wolf
may look completely different, but even a child can tell you that
they are the same kind of animal. Most people, excluding the
occasional ignorance, can tell you that you can breed any two
and form another completely different looking dog, but it is still
a dog. We have never seen anything than a dog come from a dog.
We have never seen fish produce an amphibian, or a reptile
produce a bird. We find bones in the ground, and can imagine
that it might link a bird and a reptile, but we really have no
proof. When we find these bones, all we really know is that the
animal died. That's it! We don’t know if it ever had kids, let alone
different ones.
Adaptation of organisms to their environment can also be
imagined that it's turning into something else. When a
bacterium or virus becomes immune to medications, the virus is
still a virus, and the bacteria are still bacteria. That is simply
micro evolution. For it to be macro evolution, the entire
characteristics of the organism must change into something
else, not just into a different kind of that organism. The thing is
that organisms have a basic design depending on a DNA code.
This DNA code has limitations in the ways that it can change,
because certain aspects of the code are vital to the organism
survival.
Just because a cockroach becomes immune to pesticides
does not prove anything. For instance, will a cockroach ever
become immune to a sledgehammer? Even breeding of animals
like farmers breeding for the biggest pig in a fair is proof against
macro evolution. Will farmers ever breed a pig as big as Texas?
Of course not, because the DNA code in all manner of life has
limits to how it can change. Evolution has limits, because in
truth it is not evolution, but adaptation, variations in what is
already there. Nothing new is created.
You are taught that random mutations in the DNA make up
for these limitations, and that every so often the mutation is
enough to completely alter the organism. Or that building up
many mutations will change the organism. This is only partly
true, the wording of it however, or better, the placement of it in
public school and college text books is a bait and switch method,
designed to promote evolution even though it has not been
proven. Every mutation that has ever been observed has proved
to be worse off than the original, and it has never been observed
to produce anything new, as macro evolution would need if it
was true. The DNA had produced extra of what was already
there, or taken out parts that were crucial to the survival of the
organism. So you might get a two or six-legged dog, but it’s still a
dog. It doesn’t become an insect just because it has six legs.
There are many trillions of changes that would need to take
place for that dog to become an insect. So what are they saying,
everything gets worse and worse until it becomes a better
organism? What sort of logic is that used to deduct such things?
The word evolution truly means ‘decent with modification
through means of natural selection’. That means variations in
what is already there. No one has observed something come
from something different than itself though when you are in
school or college or watching TV, evolutionists show many
examples of micro evolution, and switch the true meaning of
evolution to include everything else.
This bait and switch method in anything else would be
illegal. The true meaning is, like what has been seen with
Chihuahua, (someone's result of years of breeding to come up
with a perfectly useless animal), is still a dog. Natural selection
is simply nature’s method of keeping a kind of animal alive, the
DNA allows for adaptation. Even the peppered moth
experiment, even if it really hadn’t been a fake, is a great
example of natural selection; a process that keeps the organism
a good organism though cannot create anything new. The genes
to have dark or light moths were already there. The white ones
on a dark tree got eaten by a bird; the dark ones on a light tree
got eaten by a bird. It's adaptation, not macro evolution. It
proves an intelligent designer of all walks of life. Also the fact
that geneticists have put human embryos in pigs only proves
how fast our government can waste billions of tax dollars only to
prove further what Creation Science had thought since the
writhing of the first book of the bible. That nothing can come
about without a creator, a designer. We don't have to see the
designer to know it's there either. How many of you have seen
the person who designed your car? Yet you know there had to be
one, right?
Since we know that macro evolution does not happen, we
have a serious problem already with the phase of evolution that
was supposed to have taken place before macro evolution. How
do you get dead matter, a complex vat of elements, to become
alive? The problem is, if macro evolution cannot happen, has
never been observed to happen, how do you even get from one
stage to the next? Obviously you can't, but I will explain the
organic evolution anyway, and how it is even more impossible.
 Every living thing on earth, from the smallest bacteria to
the largest whale is dependent upon DNA, which is itself made
up of complex chemicals called amino acids. There are 20 of the
exact same amino acids found in every living thing:

1. Lysine 2. Histidine
3. Argentine 4. Aspartic Acid
5. Asparagine 6. Threonine
7. Serine 8. Glutamine
9. Hydroxy-Proline 10. Proline
11. Glycine 12. Alanine
13. Cysteine 14. Valine
15. Methionine 16. Isoleucine
17. Leucine 18. Tyrosine
19. Glutamic Acid 20. Phenylalanine

These amino acids are found in many different orders in

any one strand of DNA, thus making up the DNA code, thus all
strands that make up our Chromosomes. Not only is each amino
acid very complex, but evolutionists have yet to explain how they
could have formed on their own, out of some pre-biotic soup as
they call it. For a living organism to form an impossibly crucial
amount of things must have taken place in an instant, otherwise
the organism would not function properly as a whole and would
therefore pass away in silence.
They tried creating amino acids in a lab and were only able
to produce 3 of the 20 needed. That is far shy of producing life in
a lab. The problem they had was this. For DNA to form, you
cannot have oxygen present anywhere, or it will oxidize,
(decompose), the amino acids before they can bond. Yet oxygen
is crucial in the amino acids, because some have oxygen in the
chemical makeup. Also without oxygen, as in our atmosphere,
the ozone layer, ultra violet light and gamma rays from the sun
would make it impossible, because they too would destroy the
amino acids before they bonded into DNA.
So evolutionists have a serious problem on their hands.
You can't make the DNA with oxygen present, and yet you need it
to form the DNA. A big problem presented to evolutionists is the
fact that as you get lower in the stratified rock layers, we find
more and more oxygen, so we know it had to be well present in
the lowest layers. On top of all of this, once you get the amino
acids to form, how do you get it in the proper sequencing so that
the DNA works properly as in all living organisms? The
sequencing of the DNA code is very important if you want the
organism to function properly. Then another step, the organism
becomes alive, how does it sustain itself? Not only does it have to
come alive but also it has to be able to nourish itself, reproduce,
and move. Countless things that even a one celled organism such
as a bacterium needs to survive and multiply. What a leap of
faith evolutionists has taken to believe that all of this can just
appear on earth, or anywhere for that matter. Saying that
mutations create new things out of the DNA code is like taking
the word:
flocipocinihilipifification
...and making new words out of the letters. You can get words
like:
fanatic
hit
flip-flop
etc.
...but you'll never get
stupid
ignorant
queer
etc.
...because the proper letters, the proper coding doesn't exist. So
this evolution theory should be looked upon with the word:
flocipocinihilipifification
...which means "the action of estimating as worthless".

Three of the twenty needed is only 15% of making life in a lab. As

an example, let’s look at what can happen if 99.9% is good
enough. If it is:
*12 newborns will be given to the wrong parents daily.
*114,500 mismatched pairs of shoes will be shipped each
year.
*18,322 pieces of mail will be mishandled each hour.
*The IRS will lose Two million documents this year.
*2.5 million books will be shipped with the wrong covers.
*Two planes landing at Chicago’s O’Hare airport will be
unsafe every day.
*315 entries in Webster’s dictionary will be misspelled.
*20,000 incorrect drug prescriptions will be written this
year.
*880,000 credit cards in circulation will turn out to have
incorrect cardholder information on their magnetic
strips.
*103,260 income tax returns will be processed incorrectly
during the year.
*5.5 million cases of soft drinks produced will be flat.
*291 pacemaker operations will be performed incorrectly.
*3056 copies of tomorrow’s Wall Street Journal will be
missing one of its three sections.

Now, do you really think they created life in a lab?

The true and original meaning of evolution is decent with

modification. Again, this means variations in what is already
there. It's a process of life and nature that is designed to keep
the organism a good organism. It doesn't create anything new.
The diversity of life doesn't allow that anyway. If you make one
animal better, another is bumped down the chain and so on.
Logically, over millions of years of evolving, there would only
have been one species left on the planet not millions of them all
working together. Does quality control make better products or
does it keep the product already there good?
The ‘millions an billions of years’, the Uniformitarianism,
macro evolution, all these false and illogical teachings saturate
textbooks in public schools and colleges, and pseudo-science
broadcasts, only because they are tax funded by the government.
Yet the 10th amendment clearly states that the federal
government had no right having anything to do with the
schooling of the nation, because a government, imposing beliefs
on it's citizens, like the text books they fund for and choose, is no
better than what Hitler did forcing his Aryan beliefs or Stalin
forcing communism on his people. Teachers and professors that
willingly teach this garble are breaking the law by doing so.
Are our children and young adults being educated to think
for them-selves or indoctrinated to believe someone else's
belief? I've heard it said before too by law enforcement officials,
"ignorance of the law is no excuse,” and they should be tried in a
court of law and sentenced for their actions as traitors to the
constitution and the sovereign people of the United States of
America.
They will teach in like manner, asking questions on tests
designed to teach them ‘what to think’ not ‘how to think’.
Questions like, "Do you believe humans are still evolving?"
Which is the same sort of question as, "Have you stopped
beating your wife lately?" If you answer yes, then you admit to
doing it before, and if you say no, then you are still doing it. The
questioning of evolution being fact doesn't even come into play
and is already assumed to be true. It's a Soviet style
indoctrination question!

Most of these false teachings are the result of good

observations, but very bad conclusions. They seem to overlook
many other aspects of known science, and disregard them when
necessary to promote their belief. Another thing to consider is a
fact that most teachers and professors tend to over look when
teaching their classes, is the fact that the numbers of
chromosomes in organisms, which is made up of DNA, do not
correspond with macro evolution.

List of some chromosome numbers:

2 Penicillium
8 Fruit Fly
12 House Fly
14 Garden Pea
16 Honey Bee
18 Lettuce
20 Marijuana
22 Opossum
26 Frog
32 Alligator
36 Starfish
38 Cod Fish
40 Soybean
42 Wheat
44 Bat
46 Human
48 Tobacco
48 Chimpanzee
50 Ameba
52 Cotton
56 Silkworm
60 Cow
64 Horse
78 Dog
82 Turkey
90 Sweet Potato
94 Goldfish
100 Carp
138 White Ash Tree
480 Fern

*Does this mean we evolve into tobacco next?

*Is a fern the most evolved species on earth?

When one is comparing fossils of organisms and living

organisms, yes, it’s easy to see how similar everything is to each
other. If we weren’t so similar, we could only eat ourselves,
everything else would only be able to eat them-selves and so on.
What this shows is that the world had a smart designer. When
they say that we have a common ancestor that we all evolved
from the same organism what exactly are they comparing
anyway? Physically humans are similar to monkeys, but is that
the only comparison? Comparing things based on chemical
composition, like the amount of water in humans, we are most
closely similar to a watermelon. By intelligence, we are closer to
being a pig. By social standards, we are related closest to wolves,
or maybe even ants. It all depends what you are looking at. If
you’re talking about chromosome numbers, at least by this list,
we are related closest to a bat or a tobacco plant. We must be
evolving into tobacco then; I know lots of people who smell like
they already are.

Rough sketch of human evolution using given chromosomes:

Ameba (one celled organism)-------------------50

Starfish (more advanced invertebrate)--------36
Carp (vertebrate fish)-------------------------100
Frog (amphibian)--------------------------------26
Alligator (reptile)--------------------------------------32
Chimp (mammal primate)-----------------------48
Human (us)--------------------------------------------46

Notice anything wrong with these numbers?

Lose some to become an invertebrate,
gain some to become a vertebrate,
lose some to become an amphibian,
gain some to become a reptile,
gain some m ore to be a primate,
?
and lose some to become human

It's fascinating to consider how nature provides all that is

essential to the life here on earth. Everything compliments each
other in one huge circle of life and death. So vast are the
creatures that dwell within the farthest seas, and the highest
mountains, and the deepest forests. Even in the dark of the
underworld. Many different walks of life are everywhere, in all
shapes, sizes, and colors. We are so very much alike, and there is
reason to this scientifically.
If we were all so very different, in structure and element,
we would only be able to eat our own kind and not a diversity of
the walks of life here on earth. Our bodies are made up of all the
same materials as all the other creatures of earth. Some are
vegetarians, some are carnivores. Whatever is better for that
creature it doesn't need to go far to find it. The creator made all
life to compliment each other, nurture and replenish each other.
Yet everything dies, so it is obvious that everything declines
over time. It's the law of nature. There are so many people
destroying our world faster than it can heal itself, and that's a
terrible thing. I don’t disagree that we should be taking better
care of our world. However, this earth when swept clean of all
life during a great flood had seen worse than what it sees now,
and it came back.
Everything dies, decomposes, and breaks down. It's the law
of nature. It’s also a law of Science, of physics, "everything tends
toward disorder". It’s observable (hence obvious) and proven, it
is fact and common sense. So how does an organism evolve out
of decline? It’s just not possible. Natural selection works to keep
the organism the best organism it can through the decline of the
universe. It demonstrates a smart designer, a smart creator.
There are also many reasons mankind is above all walks of
life. We all know that there are things about us that keep us
apart from the rest of the natural world. We rule over it with our
creations. We create, we destroy, we and we want, and we lust,
and we love. An animal cannot have such will. And only "we" sit
and wonder where we came from. A plant has a body. An animal
has a body and a consciousness of life. Humans have a body, a
consciousness of life, and a consciousness of a creator.

Also, the world is not truly over crowded as some will try to tell you. The
entire population of the world can fit within the borders of Jacksonville
Florida comfortably, 25 billion square feet. If it's crowded where you live,
than move!

Lets go back a little further yet. Before the fairy tale of the
frog becoming a prince. Before the dirt coming to life. Before
even the earth itself decided to compact into a planet. Back to a
time when, just after the "Big Bang" there was nothing but
Hydrogen in the universe.
It's never been disputed that elements can be bonded
together, some even to make new elements. How though, did we
get all these elements to begin with? It's been seen in some ways
to happen, like in a nuclear explosion, in which certain elements
not formerly present will come out of the explosion. However
many seem to miss the fact that Uranium is a heavier element
that Hydrogen, so the formation of these elements is simply a
breaking down of what was already there, not the creation of
new elements. This however can also be seen feeding a cow.
 I must also point out, that in all the wars fought with
advanced weapons, we had many a Big Bang and didn't organize
a thing. Changing around what is already there, compiling
elements, breaking them apart from each other, it happens
everywhere. The problem is, everything had to start at some
point, then, as evolution wants to portray, progress to another
bigger better and more complex point. The same is with
Hydrogen. Hydrogen became Helium, Helium became,
whatever, I don't even need to go to the next step. Let’s review a
little chemistry.
Hydrogen is made up of 1 electron and 1 proton; at least
that's what they say. We've never seen an electron, some have
claimed to, but they haven't. Anyway, Helium is made up of 2
electrons and 1 proton. Here, in simple mathematics, from the
very earliest and lightest elements ever, mathematical proof that
chemical evolution can not happen.
Imagine the universe is scaled down to size and it's made
up of, oh, say 15 atoms of Hydrogen. Since each atom has 2
particles, that would equal 30 particles. Now, Helium atoms are
made up of 3 particles each, so technically, if you were to go
from Hydrogen to Helium in this universe, the universe would
have to shrink to become more evolved. 30 particles in the
Hydrogen atoms divided by 3 particles in a Helium atom equals
10 atoms of Helium after it evolved from the 15 atoms of
Hydrogen. Still follow me?
How about we just throw some matter in there from out of
nowhere. We'll go from 15 atoms of Hydrogen to 15 atoms of
Helium. So that’s 30 particles into 45 particles. Where would the
other 15 particles have come from? Neither would work really,
because you start with 1 electron and 1 proton, and change into 2
electrons and 1 proton.
There you go, it's a mathematical certainty. Either the
universe is constantly shrinking as it evolved, or electrons are
just appearing out of nowhere. And in all truth, the "Big Bang"
theory states that all time, space, and matter was produced from
a singularity, a compressed ball of all the atoms in the universe.
I’d like to know, for one, where did this singularity come from,
and second, if all time, space, and matter came from it, what was
it "in" at the beginning? How many leaps of faith must you
undergo to be an evolutionist? Much I guess, because they
answer the question with even broader imagination of ‘dark
matter’.
Some say that the universe is huge, and that they can
measure it, and no one ever questions them. The truth of it
however is that there truly is no way for us to know this for
certain. Our solar system is huge, but just how far out are those
stars? We really don't know. We cannot see their size or shape,
or be able to tell the differences between them.

“Stars are so far away, they appear only as pinpoints of

light. The only characteristic we can see is the different colors of
their light.”
(Stephen Hawking)

To judge the distance of stars, astronomers tried saying

that they used trigonometry. The problem is, for a base in
trigonometry at that distance, they would measure the angle of
earth relative to a star, wait till earth is at the other side of the
sun and measure the angle, then supposedly they can know the
third angle's measurement, and calculate the distance that way.
The problem is, even with that wide of a base, that would be a
very slim triangle at the point of the star and far too small to
calculate accurately. The earth is 8000 miles in diameter, which
is nothing, compared to star distance. So we measure half a
year’s distance coming to 93,000,000 miles for a base.
Equivalent to 8 light minutes. Earth’s orbit is 16 light minutes,
one year having 525,946 minutes in it. At one light year away,
the angle would be point 017 degrees. It would be like placing 2
tomatoes a foot apart, and one 5 miles away and making it a
triangle. The angle at the one 5 miles away would be just too
small, and this is the attempt at a star one light year away, there
are none that close. One hundred light years away, it would be
point 00017 degrees. No stars are even this close. Measuring the
angle of an object 15 trillion miles away is impossible, let alone
accurately calculating being exactly on the opposite side of the
sun as half a year ago.
Others try to use the red shift theory to show how far away
a star is. This too has been proven wrong. Red shift or cephid
variables are affected much like the Doppler Effect. As though
maybe the stars are moving away from us so fast it creates a
Doppler effect on light. This theory cannot be proven. There is
no correlation of brightness to red shift at all. Either quasars
come in an extremely wide range of intrinsic luminosities as
most people believe, or their red shifts do not indicate distance.
Such a diversity of luminosities makes it impossible to
determine distance by sight judgment alone. Even the nearest
cephids are so remote that it’s difficult to determine their
absolute distances with any great accuracy.
There is no way to know for certain that light even travels at
the same speed at all times. A Danish Physician slowed light
down to 36 miles per hour in a lab once. If it can be done in a lab,
it can happen in space. It has even been pointed out that
throughout history records, the speed of light has been declining
for the last 100 years but stopped because they started using the
atomic clock for a base to calculate the speed of light. This
atomic clock uses the wavelength of a Cesium 133 atom.
Elements have a half-life. If the speed of light has been slowing
down, the atomic clock is slowing down with it. That’s a lot like
using a rubber ruler to square a building.
Obviously, you must have an immeasurable amount of faith
to be an evolutionist. I personally would call it either ignorance
in not really knowing anything, but just following other people
in their beliefs, or stupidity that they just don't get it, or a third,
manipulative and stubborn because they just simply don't want
to believe anything else no matter how much proof there is
against evolution. Some could say that might be close to the lines
of insanity.

Like this report stated:

“Observations indicate the universe appears to be 8.4 billion to

10.6 billion years old. The Hubbell Telescope was relied upon to
obtain the distance.“ ... “ Nail R. Tanvir used a two step method
in estimating the Hubbell constant.”
(Science News September 9, 1995)
 Now think about that! How can you tell distance by sight
alone? How did they ‘estimate’ a ‘constant’ for the Hubble
telescope anyway? If it’s ‘constant’ it should be ‘absolute’ not an
estimation! Here we’re supposed to be looking for the truth and
they’re giving us completely illogical fantasies. How can anyone
say there’s no proof against these silly notions? In the book of
Isaiah chapter 45 verse 12 it says the creator stretched out the
heavens, maybe that it why we see a red shift.
There is proof by the way. Lots of it. Piles and piles of it.
Indisputable proof, multiple facts, each standing alone, that
makes evolution just plain impossible. The thing is even after the
brief amount of facts I have already hit upon, there is one key to
the entire evolution theory that is essential to it's structure and
progression. "TIME!" Evolution needs time to happen. Lots and
lots and lots of time. Time however, that just is not, and was not
ever available for the universe. They need billions and billions of
years for evolution to have happened. Some not so popular
theories of evolution only took millions and millions of years,
but even that was just not available. It only takes one fact of
science, standing alone to prove that the universe is not billions
or even millions of years old. Only one, and there are many, in
many places. Here I have listed just a few.

-----------------------------------------------------------

From Space:

The shrinking sun limits the earth-sun relationship to less than

billions of years. The sun is losing both mass and diameter.
Changing the mass would upset the fine gravitational balance
that keeps the earth at just the right distance for life to survive.

The 1/2-inch layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates the moon
had not been accumulating dust for billions of years. Almost all
estimates before the lunar landing anticipated great quantities of
dust. "I get a picture therefore, of the first spaceship, picking out
a nice, level place for landing purposes, coming in slowly
downward tail-first, and sinking majestically out of sight."
(Isaac Asimov, Science Digest, January, 1959.) Lyttleton felt that
the X-rays and UV light striking exposed moon rocks "could
during the age of the moon be sufficient to form a layer over it
several miles deep." (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society of London, vol. 115) At a rate of 2.7 inches per million
years that scientists have calculated, there should be 1033 feet of
dust in 4.6 billion years.

The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less

than billions of years old. These comets last only 10,000 years at
best. How do we still have comets at all if the universe is billions
of years old? Other non-proven theories are used to back up this
imagination such as the Ort Cloud theory. No one has ever seen
the Ort Cloud; therefore it cannot be proven.

Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers
of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for
millions of years as is currently taught in public school textbooks.

The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years

ago the moon would have to have been closer. So close that the
tides would have been much higher, drowning everything twice a
day and eroding away the continents because of the inverse
square law.

The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230,

both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the
moon was billions of years old.

The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the

Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our
solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system
is young. This space dust and the fact that there is an asteroid
belt a planet away from earth, particle traveling at velocities
much faster than a bullet, is the reason some believe that it would
be impossible to ever travel to the moon outside the protective
magnetic field of Earth. Any ship or pod, in theory, would be no
less than Swiss cheese after a few million miles.

The existences of spiral galaxies prove they are not billions of

years old. At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they
could not have been traveling for billions of years.

Saturn's rings are still unstable, indicating they are not billions
of years old.

Craters on the moon are not evenly distributed. Wouldn't logic

portray that an explosion in a vacuum would be evenly
distributed? Why are there systems of matter, and then endless
amounts of open space? This proves it did not all start with a big
bang billions of years ago.

Jupiter, its moon Ganymede and Saturn are cooling off rather
rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from
the sun. If the universe is billions of years old, why are some
celestial bodies still very hot? (Would you believe a hot cup of
coffee could sit for 100 years and still be hot?)

Jupiter's moon, Io, is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be

billions of years old.

All the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that
Sirius was a red star. Today it is a white dwarf star. Since
today's textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand
years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a
white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied.
*Egyptian hieroglyphs from 2000b.c. Described Sirius as
being red.
*Cicero in 50b.c. Described Sirius as being a red star.
*Seneca said Sirius was redder than Mars.
*Ptolemy in 150a.d. said Sirius was one of 6 red stars in the
sky.
*Today Sirius is a white dwarf, in less than 2000 years.

-----------------------------------------------------------

From Earth: (Job 12:8 "...the Earth shall teach thee...")

The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than

billions of years. Calculations prove it's not more than 25,000
years old.

The volume of lava on the earth divided by its rate of efflux gives
a number of only a few million years, not billions. If there was a
great flood as over 300 different cultures recorded 4400 years
ago, the water pressure could have cracked up the crust and
spewed much of the lava deposit all at once, making it thousands
of years, not millions.

The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the

formation rate on earth gives only 175,000 years. If the earth
were formed with some Helium in it at the beginning, that would
reduce the age significantly more.

The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to
sea level in less than 14 million years destroying all old fossils.
(American Science vol. 56)

Coal is found under the ice at the poles, and many things found
under the ice are still mint as though they were frozen instantly.
Even dinosaurs are found only 400 miles from the South Pole.
What this proves is that the continents were in the same place
when dinosaurs were here, dinosaurs lived at the same time as
mammoths, and possibly all walks of life have always lived at the
same time. Read sometime in the bible about the Behemoth and
tell me it's not a dinosaur.

Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of

formation, not millions or billions.

Niagara Falls' erosion rate (4-5 feet per year) indicates an age of
less than 10,000 years. And a great flood could have eroded half
of the 7-mile Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the water
raced through the soft sediments.

The rock encasing oil deposits is under pressure at 20,000psi,

could not withstand the pressure for more than 10,000 years.

The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is
being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years. A great
flood could have washed out 80% of the mud there in a few hours
or days, so 4400 years is a reasonable age for the delta.

The slowing spin of the earth limits it's age to less than the
billions needed by the theory of evolution. It's slowing at .001
second per day. Something not much known is that other than a
leap year every four years, we also have a leap second every 1
1/2 years. The last one being in June of 1999. If it's slowing
down, logic denotes that in the past it must have been spinning
faster. If the earth were billions of years old, the Coriolis Effect
would cause 5000 mile per hour winds.

A relatively small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor,

indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation. This
embarrassing fact is one of the reasons why evolutionists
vehemently defend the continental drift theory.

The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world

could have easily formed in about 4400 years.
The Sahara desert is expanding. It easily could have been formed
in a few thousand years. See any earth science textbook.

Clam fossils are found at the top of Mt. Everest. When a clam
dies the muscle relaxes and the shell opens. You will never find a
dead clam in the closed position. This is wrong however, because
clams on Mt. Everest are in the closed position. Some places they
are found this way 10 feet thick. At that altitude, there is only one
way to look at the evidence. These clams were buried in a great
flood, and the mountains rose and the valleys sank down, just as
the bible says. Even if you discard the flood, it really hampers
the theory of the geologic column.

The entire biomass of the world today could not possibly be

converted into the amount of fossil fuel (coal) in the ground. This
is the reason evolutionists point out that it had to have
accumulated over millions of years, but this is just impossible.
Splitting and branching and connecting coal seams prove that it
did not accumulate in layers over millions of years. In some
places the coal is 100 feet thick. If there were more land than
ocean before the great flood that would account for the amount
of coal plus hyperbaric conditions would increase the amount by
a lot.

Ice cores at the South Pole and Greenland has a maximum depth
of 10-14,000 feet. Some aircraft that crash landed in Greenland
in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were less than 263 feet of ice after
only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have
accumulated in 4400 years.

Supposedly the stalactites such as those found in caves in

Carlsbad New Mexico took 250 million years to form, 1000 years
to grow an inch. Yet this cannot possibly be true. A bat was
found in a loadstone once. 50-inch stalactites were found under
the Lincoln Memorial built in 1912. A man photographed a two-
inch stalactite hanging off his freezer. A mine in Australia that
was closed for 55 years was full of stalactites. In 1903 a man
stuck a metal pipe in a water spring in his yard in Thermopolis
Wyoming and now it's a huge loadstone formation.

Supposedly it takes 1000 years to accumulate 1 inch of diatoms

on the ocean floor. In Lompoc Florida however, there is a
diatomaceous earth quarry. Diatoms are found 1500 feet thick
there. That's 18 million years of diatoms, with no layers. Also, the
skeleton of a baleen whale was found in 1976 by workers at the
Dicalcite Division of Grefco Corporation, standing on end
running through 80 feet of the diatoms. Wouldn't this whale have
rotted away in 960,000 years? Why haven't whales evolved
since then? The layer that evolutionists say represents the
cretaceous age is made up of chalk, hence crustaceous. In Dover
England the chalk is found 300 feet thick. This proves
diatomaceous earth and chalk were all dumped off at once in a
worldwide flood.

Robert Jentry discovered polonium halos in granite. Polonium

has a half-life of three minutes proving the rock was never a
molten mass because the halos would disintegrate in molten
lava. Since evolution is a much protected belief, no one will now
publish his reports anymore.

-----------------------------------------------------------

From Biology:

The current population of earth (6 billion souls) could easily be

generated from 8 people after a great flood in less than 4000
years. If mankind appeared 3 million years ago as evolution
states, we would have 150,000 people per square inch.
The oldest living coral reef is less than 4200 years old. If the
earth is billions of years old, why is there not a bigger and older
coral reef?

The oldest living tree in the world is about 4300 years old. If the
earth is billions of years old, why don't we find older trees? And
how is it that no layers have built up around the tree?

The genetic load in mankind is increasing. Geneticists have

cataloged nearly 1300 genetic disorders in the human race. It is
certainly reasonable to believe that the human race is declining
not evolving.

-----------------------------------------------------------

From History:

The oldest known historical records are less than 6000 years old.
Many cultures have an original creation in the recent past and a
worldwide flood. Nearly 300 of these flood legends are now
known.

Biblical dates add up to 6000 years for the age of mankind, and
21,000 years for the age of the earth. Calculating the ages of the
genealogy records the flood happened roughly 4400 years ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Evolutionists have thrown lies into our books just to

promote their beliefs. I have already proven that the time is not
available for evolution to happen. I have already proven that this
earth and the universe it is in are not billions or even millions of
years old. It is a fact of science. But humans are stubborn and
inquisitive creatures. Many cannot give up the security a belief
in evolution has to offer them. By the end of the next section,
however, they will see, and fully understand, and probably be
extremely angry about what you have been taught. How it is so
very wrong, and hopefully, you will come to some conclusions of
your own as to what to replace this dying evolution theory with.
How do evolutionists come to believe that the universe is
4.6 billion years old? The answer to that question is this. The
surface of the earth is made up of many stratified rock layers.
Within these layers anthropologists find bones that they call
fossils. Most people will tell you, (because that's what they were
told), that scientists date the layers and fossils through a process
called radio metric dating. The truth is that is a blatant lie. When
someone tells you that they use radio metric dating for fossils or
stratified rock layers, you can be sure, they either have no clue
what they are talking about, or are intentionally lying to you.
Radio metric dating is used only for archeology, dating pottery,
cloth, scrolls, recently dead animals and people, things like that.
It cannot be used for fossils and rocks.
The main techniques of radio metric dating use the
measurements of certain radioactive elements (Potassium
Argon, Rubidium Stongshem, Lead 206&208, Radium 236&238,
Carbon 14) found within something from long ago, and compare
it to the amount of that element present in things today giving an
"estimate" of how old it is because the things from long ago
slowly lose that element as it breaks down. The farthest back
estimated for this kind of dating to be possible uses Potassium-
Argon, which because of it's half life, can only date back as far as
a few million years. Yet some rocks they claim are billions of
years old, and this type of dating has bigger and more
inaccuracies than radio carbon dating. The majority of dating
uses Carbon14, radio carbon dating. This however can only date
back as far as a few hundred thousand years because of its half-
life. For a basis of this radio metric dating, the dating of what is
called the Geologic Column had to be erected first and again is
based on circular reasoning. So even if they appeared to be
accurate, they are still based on false logic, no matter how you
look at it.
To demonstrate briefly, the sun hitting the earth creates
carbon 14 which is ‘unstable, as all elements making up our
universe’ and breaks down over time. Its half-life is very
predictable. It takes 11,460 years for it to decay; hence it’s half-
life of 5,730 years. The earth has an atmosphere made up of
.0000765% C14 (carbon 14). The rest being made up of .06%
Carbon Dioxide, 21% Oxygen, and 78% Nitrogen. C14 bonds with
oxygen to create CO2. Plants breaths CO2 weather its C14 or
normal Carbon. Animals eat the plants and other animals eat
those animals and dead animals are absorbed by other plants
and things and so on, until everything has C14 in it.
Then it’s assumed the ratio of C14 in the atmosphere is the
same as that found in us. Something dies, so it no longer takes in
anymore C14 so it becomes less and less over time. It’s later
analyzed and found to have only half the C14 it is supposed to
have; it shows it was dead for 5730 years. After five half lives,
you can not measure the decay of the C14. Adversely, you also
can only measure as far back as 11, 460 to maybe 40,000 years if
it were even possible to calculate that accurately. It can not date
millions or billions of years. Potassium Argon dating, which has
a half-life of 180 billion years, has the same if not more
problems as radio carbon dating.
As the sunlight is putting C14 into the atmosphere, decay is
taking it out. At some point it must reach equilibrium. It’s been
demonstrated to take 30,000 years for the earth to reach
equilibrium. So after its creation, 30,000 years must pass
before the C14 in the atmosphere is consistent. But the earth
actually has not reached its equilibrium, so the earth has to be
less than 30,000 years old. Using radio metric dating, you can
measure the amount of C14 in something and how fast it decays,
but you can only guess at how much C14 ‘was’ in it, and assume
that the decay rate has always been the same. A water canopy
over the atmosphere would put the intake ratio down, and a
great flood or catastrophe would significantly alter the ratio. So
the dating assumes things that just shouldn’t be taught as
Science.

They assume:

1. The original content of sample is known.

2. The decay rate never changes.
3. The sample has not been contaminated in the many years
it lay there.
4. The decay of C14 is always downhill.
 When you look at a picture of the Geologic Column, you see
many layers of rock. Limestone, sandstone, shale, limestone,
granite. How do you tell the difference between 220 million, 300
million, and 2 billion-year-old limestone? How do they date the
fossils and rocks? It's very simple. In the 1800s a man named
Charles Lyell wrote a book called "Principles Of Geology", where
in it he categorized the rock layers of the earth into ages based
on the fossils that were found in them and the fossils, called
"index fossil" were prescribed to each layer based on Lyell's
assumptions as to how evolution happened. Basically, to start
with, the entire idea is a man's imagination, because Lyell had
absolutely no way to prove that this Geologic Column even
existed. And it doesn't, it's not found anywhere in the world the
way he portrayed it in his book.
Even if it was found exactly like he put it in his book, there
are other ways to look at the evidence. Maybe a great flood
separated and buried the animals. Anyway, the truth is they
really have no way to date them, but assume that they have
already been dated. If there is any question as to the age of a
fossil, they check to see what rock layer it came from. If there is
any question as to the age of a certain rock layer, they see what
index fossils are found in the layer. Now, did you catch that?
They date the rocks by the fossils, and they date the fossils by the
rocks! That's called circular reasoning, and a lie.

They even admit it sometimes:

"In about 1830, Charles Lyell, Paul Deshayes, and Heinrich

George Bronn independently developed a biostratigraphy
technique for dating Cenozoic deposits based on relative
proportions of living and extinct species of fossil mollusks...
strangely; little effort has been made to test this assumption. This
failure leaves the method vulnerable to circularity."

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular

reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and the fossils to date
rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply,
feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the
work brings results."

"It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical

standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession
of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains
embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are
determined by the remains of organisms that they contain."

"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be

handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the proper
concern of the public, it can be denied, by calling down the law of
evolution. It can be admitted as a common practice... or it can be
avoided by pragmatic reasoning."

Why is it that fossils back millions of years can do things

that bones today can't do? Two centuries ago as the Europeans
were pushing farther and farther west they killed off millions of
buffalo. Go out west today and find one buffalo bone or fossil.
You're lucky if you find one. Scientists have no problem finding
fossils of all sorts that they say lived millions of years ago, (even
though they find modern species with them). Yet all things dead
today lie out on the surface of the ground and decompose, or get
torn apart by scavengers, and the remaining bones are eaten
away by bugs and things. Why didn't this happen to dead things
millions of years ago?
Even if you blindly ignore the proof of a young earth and
universe, radio metric dating has been shown to be inaccurate,
and index fossil are not accurate because many of the fossils
since Lyell's book have been found to not be extinct. If they are
still alive, then in all truth that fossil could be found in any layer.
Here are some flaws of radio metric dating followed by indexed
fossils found to still be alive.

-----------------------------------------------------------
The Dating:

Living mollusk shells were carbon dated up to 2,300 years old.

A freshly killed seal was dated at 1,300 years old.

Shells from living snails dated at 27,000 years old.

One part of a mammoth dated 29,500 years old and another part
of it at 44,000 years old.

Dima, a baby frozen mammoth was 40,000 in one part 26,000

in another and some wood found around the carcass was 9-
10,000 years old.

The lower leg of a Fairbanks Creek mammoth dated at 15,380

radio carbon years, while the skin and flesh was 21,300 radio
carbon years.

Two Colorado Creek mammoths had ages of 22,850 and 16,150,

though they were found side by side.

Living penguins were dated at 8000 years old.

"Using the most advanced dating technique a scientist tried

dating a Homo-erectus scull that he estimated at 250,000 years
old. He found startlingly that the bones were 53,000 years old at
most and possibly no more than 27,000 years old." (That's a 96%
error!)

“In the last two years an absolute date has been obtained for the
Ngandong beds, above the trinil beds, and it has the very
interesting value of 300,000 plus or minus 300,000 years.” (J.B.
Birdsell, Human Evolution 1975, p. 295)
A moon rock (supposedly) brought back in 1969 was broken into
6 pieces and dated many times. The ages range from 2.5 billion
to 4.6 billion years old. J.P. Dawson said moon rocks were dated
from 10,000 years to several billion years old. He said they don’t
know how old they are. He can be reached at P.O. Box 1328
Edmond, Oklahoma 73083, 1-405-348-3410.

The KBS tuff was dated 212-230 million years old using
Potassium Argon on April 18th, 1970. Then in 1972 Richard
Leakey found a normal human scull under the KBS tuff. Later,
KBS tuff was re-dated and ranged from 520,000 to 2.64 million
years old. If not for the scull it would never have been re-dated.
(212 million down to 2.64 million is more than a 500% error!)

Basalt from Mt. Etna Sicily (122b.c.) was dated with Potassium
Argon and the age given was 250,000 years old.

Lava from a volcano that erupted in Hawaii in 1801 was dated at

1.64 million years old.

Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (1959) gave a date of

8,500,000 years old.

Mt. Etna, Sicily (1964) gave an age of 700,000 years old.

-----------------------------------------------------------

The Fossils:

Textbooks say that trilobites lived 500 million years ago, yet a
fossil of a human shoeprint was found that has a smashed
trilobite under it.

Graptolites are the index fossil for 410 million-year-old rock.

Graptolites were found still living in the south Pacific in 1993. (If
they are still alive, they could be found in any layer.)
Lobe finned fish are the index fossil for 325 million years. In
1938, lobe finned fish are found still alive.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Besides these facts, many things have been found that seem
to show that some things evolutionists say lived a very long time
ago may actually have lived a short time ago, or still living right
now.

"A medical pathologist examined a dinosaur bone under a

microscope and found dinosaur blood inside the bone."

"18 million year old magnolia leaves from Idaho shale were still
green when the rock was first cracked open."

"Fossil bees supposedly 25 million years old contained

germinating bacteria in their abdomens."

In 1944 Mr. Newton Anderson found a man made bell in the

middle of a coal seam. Call him if you want: 1-304-842-5556

A 4 1/2-inch zinc and silver vessel was found in solid rock that
was supposedly 600 million-year-old rock, in Dorchester
Massachusetts in 1851.

What appeared to be a porcelain spark plug with a wire center

was found encased in solid rock.

On June 11, 1891, Mrs. S. W. Culp broke open a lump of coal and
found a golden chain 10 inches long. (Hidden History of the
Human Race by: Michael A. Cremo)

A carved stone was found in a lump of coal near Webster Iowa

on April 2, 1897.
An Iron cup was found in an Oklahoma coal mine in 1912.

The sole of a shoe was found in Nevada in a rock supposedly 213-

248 million years old. You could even see the stitching and the
twist of the thread on the sole.

Bent rock layers have been found showing that the rock layers
were bent while they were still soft. The only way to account for
this is the fact of a worldwide flood, not millions of years of
accumulation. These types of formation are called an
"unconformity" in Geology.

Fresh dinosaur bones were found in Alaska. Also in northwestern

Alaska in 1961, a geologist found a bed of dinosaur bones in
unfossilized condition.

A fresh duckbill dinosaur was found in Montana.

A young Inuit working with scientists in 1987 found a lower jaw

of a duckbill dinosaur in fresh condition on Bylot Island.

An Iron pot was found in a lump of coal in Thomas, OK in 1912.

In June of 1934 the Hahn family discovered a hammer in

cretaceous limestone outside London Texas. The metal of the
hammer was found to be 96% Iron, 2.6% chlorine, and .74%
Sulfur, with absolutely no carbon in it. Modern industry cannot
produce iron castings of this quality with no air bubbles, in fact,
that type of iron could not have been made under present
atmospheric conditions. The handle was partially coalified with
quartz and calcite crystalline inclusions showing that it was very
old.
Petrified trees have been found all over the world standing up,
and running through many different rock layers. Some found
standing "upside down" running through many different rock
layers. They are found in places such as St. Etienne France,
Joggins Nova Scotia Canada, and Yellowstone National Park
Wyoming. There are 27 layers of forests at Specimen Ridge in
Yellowstone. This created a serious problem for evolutionists. If
evolution and the geologic column are true they have only two
choices to explain this, and both are ridiculous. Either the trees
stood upright for millions of years not rotting and decomposing
and slowly petrifying as the sedimentary layers formed around
them. Or the trees grew through hundreds of feet of solid rock
layers looking for sunlight. There is another choice to explain
this, though it excludes evolution. These trees were buried in a
great worldwide flood.

Obviously things don't petrify over millions of years. Running

water, such as that from a worldwide flood can cause things to
petrify very rapidly. A petrified water wheel was found. A
petrified fish was found giving birth. A cowboy boot with part of
a leg still in it was found in Iraan Texas in 1980 with part of the
leg still in it. A petrified hat was found in New Zealand. A grave
had to be moved because of flooding in the area after it had been
there 14 years and the man in the casket was found to be
completely petrified.

-----------------------------------------------------------

What has been found to happen with radio metric dating is

that, 1. Samples of known age, radioisotope dating doesn't work.
2. Samples of unknown age, radioisotope dating is assumed to
work. Some logic these evolutionists have. They really have no
idea how to date anything, because they have no basis for the
dating. Even if the radio metric dating worked, it could not
possibly be accurate, because the geologic column had to be
erected first as a basis.
 Theory stacked upon theory stacked upon theory, and not
one shred of proof. They already know that it's a pointless
venture, that all these proofs exist to show that evolution is just
impossible. You can take a hand full of dirt and sand, put it in a
jar, poor water in it, shake it up and slowly dump it out in one
spot, cut it in half, and you will see it has separated into many
different layers. Just exactly like those things you see in stores
where they have sand and water between two plates of glass. You
shake it up, flip it upside down and watch the layers form.
I would also like to see evolutionists explain how the Grand
Canyon was formed. They tell you that the Colorado River did it
over millions of years. On closer detailed inspection though, you
will see how that is just not possible. The top of Grand Canyon is
6000 feet above sea level. The bottom is 1800 feet above sea
level. (That's one mile deep.) However, the river enters the
canyon at 2800 feet above sea level. Do rivers flow uphill? The
Colorado River had to if it carved out the Grand Canyon. It
would have to flow from 2800 feet, uphill to 6000 feet, and
erode it down to 1800 feet. Sorry, that's just not possible. Where
the Mississippi River flows from Chicago to New Orleans, a
stretch of 920 miles shows an 8-inch drop every mile. Maybe I'm
wrong but I've never heard of any canyons along the Mississippi.
A river did not carve out the Grand Canyon, the runoff of a Great
Flood carved out that canyon.
In the 1980’s Mt. St. Helens erupted. The catastrophe made
huge mudslides that blocked off the river in the area. As the
water backed up higher and higher it eventually broke over the
mudded dam and carved out a huge canyon in the soft earth.
Today the canyon is still there, solid as rock now and you can see
many different layers in the wall of the canyon. This was formed
in a few days, not millions of years. Dry Falls Montana, which is
larger than Niagara Falls has no water running over it, and there
is no volcano in the area. Would an evolutionist please explain
this erosion, because it seems to me to be another proof of a
great flood?
Another point to consider about a segment of evolution
theory is the "continental drift theory". Look at a map of
Pangaea, the landmass that supposedly existed before the
continents spread apart. Here are the discrepancies in this
artist’s imagination. There is no question that the continental
plates move a little each year. A great flood could also have
caused when they started moving.

Discrepancies in Pangaea:

1.) South America and Africa only fit together if they are
used at different scales. Africa had to be shrunk 40%.
2.) Mexico and Central America are gone from the map
completely.
3.) Europe and South America are rotated counter clockwise
and Africa is rotated clockwise.
4.) There is dirt (land) under the oceans. Did it just move out
of the way as the continents drifted? The shape of the
continental plates would not allow this to happen. It is
impossible!

"At the Mid-Atlantic ridge there are supposedly magnetic

reversals in the rock. There really are no reversals, what we see
there is stronger and weaker magnetism. "It is clear that the
simple model of uniformly magnetized crustal blocks of
alternating polarity does not represent reality."
(Science Vol. 204)

The laws of thermodynamics also prove that the evolution

theory is blindly wrong in its reasoning. The first law states that
matter cannot be created or destroyed. Yet we are here. The
second law states that everything tends toward disorder. Yet
everything is advancing into bigger and better things? A
principal in physics called the "conservation of angular
momentum", proves the universe, at least from what we can see
in the solar system, did not form as evolution says.
The conservation of angular momentum is the fact that
when a spinning object breaks apart, all the pieces will be
spinning the same way because the outside is spinning faster
than the inside of any spinning object. Yet Uranus, Venus, and 6
of the 63 moons spin the opposite direction than the rest of the
solar system. How is that possible if evolution is true? Do you
realize what it would take to reverse the spin of a planet?
Wouldn't it be better now, knowing all this, to admit that the way
things are seen are better explained by a creation? That our
entire universe was created, as all our ancient ancestors
believed? After all, the very word "universe" means, "a single
spoken sentence". The creator said, "Let there be", and there
was.
Many ancient accounts report this creation, and just as
many report a great flood. Before this great flood was a time that
our ancestors called The Golden Age when people could live to
extremely old ages. There were giants in the earth in those days
they said also. If you look at the remains of dinosaurs, you see,
yes, there were giants in the earth in those days. The things that
up until 1841 were called dragons in all books, dictionaries, and
encyclopedias. Dragonflies with 3-foot wingspans have been
found in limestone quarries. Giant cats, giants, insects, giant
beavers, giant lizards, giant birds, and all found in fossil
graveyards.
This is because before the flood, there was a canopy of
water over the atmosphere. This would cause the world to be
much different that what we see today. The canopy would make
the entire world in what is called Hyperbaric Conditions. These
conditions existed because the canopy made the air pressure
possibly twice the PSI it is today. Today it is 15psi. At 30psi,
everything would be in a green house effect. No harmful rays of
the sun could creep in through the water canopy. The oceans are
getting saltier every year.
It is another theory stating that before the great flood
everything was fresh water and then after the land was churned
up they began to get saltier. The fish have learned to adapt to
their new environment. When the water canopy from above the
atmosphere fell, it covered the entire earth with water. This
with the subterranean water, and the ice comet that must have
frozen the mammoths, it's easy to see why we do not have as
much land now as they did before the great flood. I wonder
what remains out there under the water just waiting to be found
and scream its evidence into the ear of evolutionists.
If everything were created, wouldn't it be safe to assume
that it was all created perfect, then follow the laws of
thermodynamics and tend toward disorder? Hyperbaric
conditions would make everything grow bigger, live longer, heal
faster, so much that research is being done today, using it to
treat all and any sort of injury and sickness. Even national
sports teams are using hyperbaric chambers to treat their
players.
If there was more land than ocean back then as it is
assumed, that would explain the massive amounts of coal and oil
deposits found. Reptiles never stop growing until they die, that
would explain perfectly how the dinosaurs got to be so huge.
They were all buried in the great flood and crushed into oil. Even
remains of human giants have been found. Some probably from
the time within a couple hundred years after the flood. In the
book Bones of Contention, Lubenow said that of all of our
ancient remains having to do with a human evolving, only 4000
humans have been found, very few are complete, and most only
small fragments. Many of these giant remains were complete
skeletons.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Reports from around the globe of giant remains:

In his book The Natural and Aboriginal History of Tennessee,

author John Haywood described "very large" bones in stone
graves found in Williamson County Tennessee in 1821. In White
County Tennessee an "ancient fortification" contained skeletons
of gigantic stature averaging at least 7 feet in length.

George W. Hill M.D. dug out a skeleton of unusual size in a

mound of Ashland County Ohio. In 1879 a 9 foot 8 inch skeleton
was excavated from a mound near Brewersville Indiana.
(Indianapolis News, Nov. 10, 1975)

A six foot six inch skeleton was found in a Utah mound at least a
foot taller than the average Native American height in the area,
and these natives, what few there were of them, were not mound
builders.
A Dr. Everheart near Zanesville Ohio found a skeleton reported
of enormous dimensions in a clay coffin, with a sandstone slab
containing hieroglyphics during mound explorations (American
Antiquarian, Vol. 3, 1880, p. 61)

Ten skeletons of both sexes and of gigantic size were taken from a
mound near Warren Minnesota in 1883. (St. Paul Pioneer Press,
May 23, 1883)

A skeleton 7 foot 6 inches was found in a massive stone structure

that was the likened to a temple chamber within a mound in
Kanawha County West Virginia in 1884. (American Antiquarian,
Vol. 6, 1884, Cyrus Thomas, 'Report on Mound Explorations of
the Bureau of Ethnology', 12th annual report, Smithsonian
Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-91)

A large mound near Gasterville Pennsylvania contained a vault

in which was found a skeleton measuring 7 feet 2 inches.
Inscriptions were carved on the vault. (American Antiquarian,
Vol. 7, 1885)

In 1885, miners discovered remains of seven skeletons 7 to 8 feet

tall. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, June 29, 1888)

The skeleton of a huge man was uncovered at the Beckly farm,

Lake Koronis Minnesota; while at Moose Island and Pine City,
bones of other giants came to light. (St. Paul Globe, August 12,
1896)

In 1911, several red-haired mummies ranging from 6 and a half

feet to 8 feet tall were discovered in a cave in Lovelock Nevada.

In February and June of 1931, large skeletons were found in the

Humboldt lakebed near Lovelock Nevada. The first of these two
skeletons found measured 8 1/2 feet tall and appeared to have
been wrapped in a gum covered fabric similar to the Egyptian
manner. The second skeleton was almost 10 feet long. (Review-
Miner, June 19, 1931)

A 7 foot 7 inch skeleton was reported to have been found on the

Friedman ranch near Lovelock Nevada in 1939. (Review-Miner,
September 29, 1939)

In 1965, a skeleton measuring 8 foot 9 inches was found buried

under a rock ledge along the Holly Creek in east central
Kentucky.

In 1833, soldiers digging at Lompock Racho California

discovered a male skeleton 12 feet tall. Carved shells, stone axes,
and other artifacts surrounded the skeleton. The skeleton had
double rows of upper and bottom teeth. Unfortunately the body
was secretly reburied because the local Native Americans
became upset about the remains.

A giant scull and vertebrate was found in Wisconsin and Kansas

City.

A giant found off the California Coast on Santa Rose Island in the
1800s was distinguished by its double rows of teeth.

In Clearwater Minnesota, the skeletons of seven giants were

found in mounds. These had receding foreheads and complete
double dentition.

At LeCrescent Wisconsin, mounds were found to contain giant

bones. Five miles north near Dresbach, the bones of people over 8
feet tall were found.

Leg bones measuring 47 inches were found by Ain-Tel Euphrates

water works engineers in Uran-Zohra, Turkey along with silex
arrowheads, obsidian tools, and ammunition. Estimates suggest
that these giants were 14-16 feet tall.

In his book Fossil Facts & Fantasies, Joe Taylor cites several
accounts of giant human skeletons or depictions discovered in
Egypt, Italy, and Patagonia Argentina.

In Suva, skeletal remains of a 3000-year-old giant were found

on this South Pacific Island. Another found north on the island of
Lomaiviti predates European exploration of the Pacific. Remains
are assumed to belong to people inhabiting the Solomon Islands.

A 2000-year-old 6 foot 6 inch warrior giant was found in

Kazakhstan. He was believed to be revered by his people who
buried him with his weapons. Historians say this may lead to
reconsidering the origin of the region's people.

A mound near Toledo Ohio held 20 skeletons seated and facing

east with jaws and teeth twice as large as those of present day
humans. Beside each skeleton was a bowl with curiously
wrought hieroglyphic figures on them. (Chicago Record, Oct. 24,
1895; cited by Ron G. Dobbins, NEARA Journal, v13, fall 1978)

In old river gravels near Bathurst Australia, huge stone artifacts

such as clubs, pounders, adzes, chisels, knives, and hand axes, of
tremendous weight were found. Only men of tremendous
proportions could possibly have made and used such tools.
Estimates state the men must have been 10-12 feet tall weighing
500-600 pounds. North of this near the Winbundale River, a
fossicker found a large quartzitised fossil human molar too big to
be any normal modern man.

In Dubbo Australia in the 1930s, giant footprints were found

fossilized in red jasper.
In Gympie Queensland, farmer Keith Walker found the lower jaw
of a human giant. Estimates say the giant was apoximatly 10 feet
tall.

In the Megalong Valley, Blue Mtns. Australia, Mr. P. Holman

found a deeply impressed human footprint in ironstone. It
measured 7 inches across the toe suggesting a 12-foot giant.
However, the largest footprint found in the Blue Mountains
belonged to a man 20 feet tall!

A petrified finger measuring 6 inches was found in supposed

"cretaceous" limestone. Other excavations in the limestone
revealed a child's tooth and human hair. Cat scan and MRI
identified joint and tendons throughout the length of the fossil.

Near the Paluxy River in Glen Rose Texas, dinosaur footprints

were found in cretaceous limestone. While this was nothing out
of the ordinary, the human footprints found within the dinosaur
tracks and human handprints near by were very unusual. These
tracks measured 18-25 inches long, much bigger than a normal
human, estimating a height of 10-12 feet tall and possibly over
1000 pounds in weight, and judging by the compression prints it
was a female's print. (The cretaceous period was supposedly 75-
100 million years before humans were supposed to have evolved.
Casts of similar footprints can be found at the Rex Gilroy
Butterfly Museum near Tamworth Australia.)

-----------------------------------------------------------

So much for the evolution of man from small monkeys!

Evolutionists are calling giant skeletons of humans
Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus. Yet these people that they
find are found with mega tools and artifacts so their humanness
is difficult to question. When will they just come to terms with
reality and accept that evolution just isn't in the equation
anymore? Why do they persist in denying what we already have
known to be true? Evolution is really the only "myth" out there.
There’s preconceived notion that primitive man was a tiny
monkey, so they’re normally not looking for giant bones, and if
found, it probably wouldn’t occur to them they were human.

"I would have to say that the belief in evolution is in a state

of terminal illness but it's death will only be admitted by a new
generation of scientists whose minds have not been prejudiced by
the types of education now prevalent in the nation's public
schools, an education which starts with the belief that evolution
has happened, which interprets all evidence according to that
faith and which simply discards any evidence which cannot be
fitted into the evolutionary framework." (Dr. Hilton Hinderliter
of Apollo Campus Penn. State University, quote taken from
"Dinosaurs" by Dr. Carl E. Baugh, 1987, Promise Publishing Co.
Orange California 92667.)

The finding of frozen mammoths suggests a theory of a

great flood. Not only mammoths are found by the way, even
bobcats, camels, oxen, etc. Anyway, these mammoths are found
frozen standing upright, with undigested food in their mouths
and stomachs. Found dead of suffocation though no water was
in their lungs. The ice crystals found in their blood prove that
they froze in less than 5 hours. The coldest it has ever been
recorded on earth is in Antarctica, a low -130*F. If you freeze
something too big, the freezing will only take place on the
outside, and then the insides will rot because the ice will insulate
the heat from escaping. To freeze a huge mammoth in less than 5
hours, -300*F is required. That temperature can only be found
in ice meteors in space. The theory, called the Hovind Theory,
suggests this:

1.) The earth was created, with a huge under water reservoir
under the land and a canopy of water above the atmosphere as
was recorded in ancient texts and all kinds of life were created all
at once. Super cooled ice is magnetic. So it's reasonable to see
that this water canopy was held up by the Mysner effect.
2.) A -300*F ice comet came through the solar system. Like
throwing a snowball, it fragmented forming the rings around
some planets; impacting and forming the canyons on Mars as
the water melted then evaporated into space. Much of it was
pulled by the earth’s gravitational pull towards the poles like
what happens with the northern lights.

3.) The sudden dump of ice caused the earth's crust to crack up
like an egg releasing the underground water.

4.) The rapidly spreading ice caused the Ice Age effects, buried
and froze them quickly, and because of the weighted ice, the
earth started to wobble for thousands of years as can be seen
comparing ancient sun temples and how they don't line up today
as they did long ago.

5.) All of this caused the water canopy floating above the
atmosphere by the Mysner effect to fall to earth flooding the
entire surface.

6.) During the first few months of harmonic tides, storming, and
the earth quaking beneath, and swirling waters, dead animals
were sifted out depending on body density, intelligence, and
habitat creating the fossil graveyards we find today. The dirt
and rock was sifted out by density too creating the stratified rock
layers that buried these animals.

7.) During the last few months of the flood, the now unstable
plates of the earth started shifting. Thin spots sank down
forming the ocean basin; other parts rose up to compensate
forming the mountains. The runoff carving out canyons through
the soft sediments in minutes as seen after the Mt. Saint Helens
catastrophe.
8.) Over the next few hundred years, the ice caps retreated lifting
the oceans, making them deeper, wider, and colder forming the
continental shelf. Australia was no longer connected to Viet
Nam, Alaska was no longer connected to Russia, and England
was no longer connected to France. People became trapped on
separate continents. (The bible says the earth was divided in the
days of Peleg who's name means divided.)

9.) As the cold water absorbed CO2 from the atmosphere getting
rid of many green house gasses allowing more solar radiation to
get through the atmosphere and people's life spans shortened as
also reported in ancient texts. (Peleg's brother's name was
Joktan who's name means shortened.)

10.) The loss of the water canopy over the atmosphere destroyed
the hyperbaric conditions created by it. People and animals
didn't grow as big, they didn't heal as fast, venom and poisons
became harmful. The earth’s wobbling caused the seasons, and
we could no longer see the heavens as clearly as we could with
such a huge magnifying glass over head. The world today is the
result of mankind's arrogance and angel's pride.

There has been found over 500 accounts of a worldwide

flood, coming from all continents and cultures and races. Many
report that a family escaped with many animals and repopulated
the earth afterward. Texts from the Middle East and Egypt
report a huge comet or asteroid that hit Earth in our ancient
past. Can all of these just be coincidence?
What you choose to believe is up to you. I hope you can see
that evolution is just not a logical theory, and has more proof
against it than it has for it. Everything that science finds is better
explained by a special creation and a world wide flood than by
the fanatical story that a frog became a prince. The similarities
between all structures of life show evidence of a common
designer, not a common ancestor.
Vestigial organs do not exist either. Just because you can
live without something does not make it vestigial. If that was
true get rid of your eyes, legs, arms, ears, hair, penis, breasts,
and tong. The things that they say are vestigial really do have
uses. Such as the pancreas being a part of the immune system.
The tailbone having muscle attachments that are VERY
important to the bowel movements. (Want to get rid of yours?)
The pelvis in a whale does not prove it walked on land. Its pelvis
is used for muscles to attach to that are very important in it's
reproduction. They even go as far to say that a human fetus has
gill slits. That is a plain lie. The ridges they say are the gill slits
form into bones in the ear and throat having nothing to do with
breathing. They just use excuses like this to justify killing babies
through abortions. They have killed off nearly 1/3 of the world's
population so far this way. More than all major wars in
America's history.

Death tolls of wars:

(Tallied between 1999-2000)

American Revolution: 25,324

Civil War: 498,332
World War II: 407,316
Korean War: 54,246
Vietnam: 58,655
American/Iraqi War(s): 3,000+
Total: 1,046,873

Abortions: 28,132,580

(The wars only took 26.9% of the amount of lives taken by

abortions! 4,500 children are killed by abortions every day. The
size of a small city every day!)

What makes a child in the womb not a person, a living

individual? What makes a black man, or Arab, or Chinese, or
Irish man not a person? When selfish ignorant people want
them to be, that's it! Survival of the fittest happens here on
earth only because we humans were created to rule the earth.
What's to get ahead of? We've killed off everything so far and
will still kill off many things if we don’t change something. We
are the survivors of everything, but not by our own hands, by the
grace of YHWH. If we aren’t justified in someone's eyes, how do
you justify it if there is no moral absolute? We've created this
madness of superiority when we should have always been in
equality, harmony.
The many points that people use to justify abortion are just
excuses like people of this nature always come up with, but none
are logical. They'll try to say a fetus has gill slits to show it is not
human at that stage, but that's a lie, the ridges they say are gill
slits actually turn into bones in the ear and glands in the throat
having nothing to do with breathing. People try to say that at 7
months the embryo is not yet a baby, yet some are born at 5 1/2
months and survive just fine. They say the fetus is not viable, it
can't live on it's own anyway, so it's not a person, yet can a three
year old live on it's own? Isn't it a fact that many young adults
still can't live on their own, and they are still considered persons
(by law)? And they say the child may be unwanted, but how
many children at orphanages are unwanted? The child may be a
financial burden, yet what child isn't? The child may be from
rape or incest, but why take the life of an innocent person? Kill
the rapist or demented person and adopt out the baby. Let me
ask you, is slaughtering off people for your own gain and
comfort okay? Is it the right thing to do? The German
Government said in 1936 that Jews ‘are not persons’. Were they
so right? Just because something is legal to do does not make it
the right thing to do! Stop this war on the unborn! In 1974 the
U.S. government declared that the unborn ‘is not a person’,
sound familiar?
A German scientist named Earnst Haeckle made some
evidence to support Darwin's theory in 1869. He took the
drawings of a dog and a human embryo at 4 weeks development,
and altered them to make them look just alike. He also did this
with a fish, a chicken, and a human, and an arrangement of
many different embryos put in order to look like different stages
in development. Haeckle was tried in 1874 at his own university
and was convicted of fraud. Somehow, beyond all common
sense and moral judgment, these drawings can still be found in
many books today and textbooks in our schools. The fact that a
human embryo is not a person was proven wrong in 1874, why in
"God's" name are we still teaching it?
The entire evolution theory, especially Darwinian
evolution, is simply something left over from a time when people
wanted to justify being racist. Darwin's book had a long title
originally. It was called, "The Origin of Species, Decent with
Modification through Means of Natural Selection, Preservation
of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life". Tell me that's not a
racist title! His book just happens to come out around the time
of the American Civil War where one of the main disputes was
over having the right to own slaves in a supposedly free country?
Many people looked at evolution as a way to justify it, that they
were "superior" to other races, more "evolved". Yet the theory
of evolution was already under way before this time. This was a
time called the "Laodacian Age" (spoken of in the Revelation
chapter 3), when the world was bent on trying to get rid of their
kings. Many revolutions happened during this time:

American Revolution 1776

French Revolution 1789
Spanish Revolution 1823
Polish Revolution 1831
Italian Revolution 1846
German Revolution 1848

Everyone before this time did not question that the bible
was the truth. Maybe some people before hand did, like during
the Inquisition, abused the power they had even though they
claimed to follow the bible. But in every school it was taught
that 'God' created the earth in the beginning and everything that
there in is. All the learned men of the day knew it. Do you think
they just took everything so naively, or did they too see in the
world the evidences and the testimonies that 'God' exists. The
truth is there is nothing unscientific about the bible. The only
thing yet to be observed is the creator himself, and according to
the bible, that too has already been done. And the bible says that
slavery is wrong, and that we are all of one blood, from Adam, or
Noah during the Great Flood. The bible also said to honor the
king. So people wanted to get rid of their kings. No more leaders
trying to guide the people through a divinely given throne. Then
people could do the rest and have the bible thrown out
completely. To do this, they had to convince everyone else that
the bible was untrue. This has never really been done, but the
naivety of mankind was led to believe in other people's
imaginations, their evidences, and they fell short of the truth.
James Hutton (1726-1796), a lawyer, wrote a book called
the "Theory of the Earth", in it he proposed a philosophy called
Uniformitarianism, which stated that the present is the key to
the past. Unfortunately, no one realized that the only true key to
the past is what had been observed by our ancestors and written
down, not assumptions made by people of what they find buried
in the ground. Then Sir Charles Lyell, another lawyer, concocted
the Geologic Column in his book in 1830, which we have seen
does not exist, and is pure imagination. Finally Charles Darwin,
a minister, wrote his book The Origin of Species, where he
proposed that since all things appear similar, they must have a
common ancestor. Sorry Charles, maybe if you had been a true
scientist or faithful minister, you might have realized the facts
I've stated earlier on the similarities between organisms. It
proves a common designer. Darwin even plagiarized most of the
book which was written by his father Rasmusen between 1802
and 1809, and Darwin never really did believe in his theory. He
was certain we would never be able to prove it, and we haven't.
So ultimately, Hutton took away the age of the earth
through his Uniformitarian philosophy, making people doubt
the credibility of ancient sources. Lyell took away the concept of
a great flood, the physical proof of a divine creator judging this
world, giving people reason to deny that they are responsible for
what they do. Then Darwin took away the creator all together by
inventing the philosophy of evolution. There was nothing left for
people to believe in. The creator was denied to even exist. I hope
that this tract will be enough to revert us back to the more pure
of science and logic.
Fallen angels have used these same techniques again and
again, make them doubt 'God', "Yea hath Elohim said?” make
them deny 'God', "You will not surly die", and offer them the
kingdom of all, "Ye shall be as gods". Tempting this to even
Yahushuah, "Will God protect you?” "You must eat bread...” "I
will give you all that you see...” Are you all such slaves to these
fiends? In truth the geologic column is now the bible for
evolutionists, even though the column doesn't exist anywhere
but in textbooks. This too they admit sometimes saying, "if there
were a column of sediments... unfortunately no such column
exists." You can be sure that if the story starts out, "long ago
and far away" or "millions and billions of years ago" there is a
fairy tale, a great work of fiction coming next.
In a worldwide flood, with water covering the entire earth,
all the tides created by the moon would be inharmonic. This
means a tidal change of 200 feet every 6 hours and 25 minutes.
The bible says the flood lasted for 150 days, 3600 hours total.
That leaves 576.92307 tidal changes leaving a possible 576 layers
at least and thousands at most. In the swirling water body
density, physical characteristics, mobility, habitat, and
intelligence could sort the dead. This is why we find thousands
of bones contorted and mangled in fossil graveyards. The layers
are not different ages, but all laid down at the same time in a
huge catastrophe.

As a final thought, realize that in an Uniformitarian,

evolutionary society, where the law is survival of the fittest,
people thinking in those terms, only the strong, the smart, and
the rich can survive. Everyone else is inferior, obsolete, and
expendable. We see it every day. Kill all or be killed. Teach your
children they are just animals and that there are no moral
absolutes, that mankind is their own god, and see what happens.
We need to stop this dangerous belief. It's imagination, a lie,
someone's blind philosophy, a belief, and therefore a religion,
where time is their god. Time however that has been proven to
not exist. A creator created the earth, created life, and judged
the earth through it's wrong doing, and destroyed it with a great
flood. He does it right the first time, but his creations seem
always bent on destroying themselves. Therefore we need His
guidance, commandments, laws, statues, and His mercy and
love.
The whole of evolution confuses the very right for an
individual to live on this planet, in safety, and under fair
governing checks and balances. Here are the differences
between what evolution teaches people compared with what
Creationism teaches people.

Evolution:
*There is no purpose to life.
*Death brought man, so death is a good thing.
*There is no after life.
*You can never know the future for sure.
*Only the strongest should survive, and there is no god to
help you.
*Mankind is god of his or her own world, but if you make
mistakes , you must make room for someone more fit,
more evolved.
*There are no moral absolutes.
*You are only accountable for your actions if you are caught.
*Mankind is no different that an animal so there is nothing
special about you, only at your best are you worth
anything.

Creation:
*Mankind is a fallen creature in need of a savior.
*Mankind brought death into the world and death is very
bad.
*There is an afterlife and some people can live forever.
*You can know the future.
*God can do anything for you.
*Mankind is lower than God is and subject to failures and
mistakes, and all should help each other.
*Everyone is equal under God's eyes.
*There are moral absolutes, and written by righteous, inspired,
people.
*Everyone is accountable for his or her actions.
*Mankind is a special creature, above the animal kingdom,
and each individual has a worth.
 Scientists have been wrong about great many things, and
evolution is another of our mistakes to put in the history books.

*In 1770, George Baffon said the earth was 70,000 years
old.
*In 1905, the age of the earth was officially 2 billion years
old.
*Today people teach that it is 4.6 billion years old.

At this rate, I deduct that the Earth is getting 21 million

years older every year, that's 40 years per minute.
Our culture needs to do away with the thought that
everything before the inquisition was wrong and myth while
everything after it is truth. People need to start listening to the
more logical sciences and more logical of historians. God knows
it all, why not try and listen to him, you may be surprised.

Sholom,
Tzephanyahu