The Lie of Evolution

Pastor David Ministries

https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pastordavidministries

Revised
November 2017

2Peter 3:5,6 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water
and in the water: (the Genesis flood) 6 Whereby the world that then
was, being overflowed with water, perished: In the original Greek:
2Peter 3:5,6

6 The Genesis
flood is of the utmost importance in the comparison between evolution
and creation.
The archaeological evidence left on earth many years ago tells
the only physical story we have of what happened. Since the differ-
ence between these two concepts is extremely contrary from each
other, the job of coming to an honest conclusion ought to be easy.

The word evolution has been very much misused and incorrect-
ly defined in modern times. Therefore, a clear definition must be
given of this word. The main purpose of the modern use of this word
was started over a century ago (by Darwin's 1859 On the Origin of
Species), to give an explanation of the origin of life, because certain
people rejected the predominant religious teaching, back then, that
God created the world and human beings in six days, approximately
six thousand years ago. The main purpose of the theory of evolution
was to state very clearly that no creator was necessary for our exis-
tence. Its very essence is that of atheism.
However, the word evolution has been very much misused. For

1
example, some people talk about the evolution of the computer. But,
everybody knows that the computer had human creators and that its
creation (not evolution) has been a slow and gradual process by
human creators all within the last century. The computer could never
have evolved without creators; it was created, it didn't evolve all
by itself. However, it is more likely that a computer could evolve all by
itself than that a human being could evolve all by himself; a human is
much more complicated.
The word development implies the existence of creators,
whereas the word evolution implies the non-existence of creators;
that it was self-producing. When people use the word evolution
concerning things that had creators, it causes a mix-up in people's
minds, because they can see very plainly the existence of the things
created, thereby inappropriately producing a reinforcement of the be-
lief in the theory of evolution applied to the origin of life, without a
creator. The subject of whether or not there was a creator becomes
irrelevant and/or insignificant, whereas the existence of a creator
should be the central point. Using the word evolution inappropriately
confuses people. (See article on: The Consequences of Using
Incorrect Terminology.)
The theory of evolution also assumes that species are always
slowly changing into different species,...... which is false. (assume
means to make an ass (donkey's rear end) of you and me) No
specie has ever changed into a different specie. The DNA code itself
prohibits that. Children are always different than their parents, but
children are always the same specie,..... and not any other specie. All
species have variations from one generation to the next, but none of
them are changing into a different specie; the variations always have
limits. The theory of evolution must assume that there are no
limits. No fossil of any intermediate form between any two species
has ever been found, never, zip, zero, nada. All of the links between
all of the species are all missing. 00.00% exist.
It is true that the word evolution originally comes from old Latin
and that before the modern theory of evolution (started by Darwin's
1859 On the Origin of Species), concerning the origin of life, it was

2
used in a more general manner, very similar to the word develop-
ment. However, it is very important when dealing with the origin of
life and the origin of the planet Earth not to confuse its meaning.
Since the formation of the modern theory of evolution of life there
has been attached to it a very powerful connotation of an anti-religious
and atheistic rejection of the creator God that goes along with the
package. This atheistic mentality is a danger that has now been auto-
matically attached to the word evolution, wherever it is used.

The Bible teaches that, approximately six thousand years ago

(more or less) God created the world in six days (literal days consist-
ing of 24 hours, they were not six extended periods of time, as some
people propose, Gen. 1:5 And God called the light Day, and the
darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the
first day.) (Evolution and creation are contrary to each other, and no
attempt should be made to combine them or to blend them together.)
..... then God rested on the seventh day as an example for people to
dedicate one day a week for rest from regular work and to devote that
one day a week to religious worship service. (Gen. 1,2)
There is a big difference between the age of the earth being six
thousand years, according to the teaching of creation in the Bible, as
compared to about six billion years, more or less, according to the
theory of evolution. (It really doesn't matter exactly how many years,
because they're always changing it.) (Just to make it a nice round
number, we could make it a million to one difference.) The question
is: where do evolutionary scientists get their number of years from?
Also, why do they feel free to change that number whenever they get
in the mood, and then teach it as though it's an undeniable fact? The
number of years they give is always changing....... and yet they teach
it as though it's an indisputable fact.
In order to measure the age of the earth one must examine some
sort of process that has been happening on a constant regular basis,
assuming that the process has been continuing at the same rate in the
past. (In this case, it is necessary to assume something, whereas in

3
those other cases assuming is incorrect, wrong and irrational.) In
the Bible, people existed since the garden of Eden, which is a close
approximation of the age of the earth. But in evolution, that is not con-
sidered acceptable. In the www.e-sword.net free Bible software, they
provide a very nice graphical time-line chart from Adam to Christ.
About 4,100 years.
Continuing the discussion of using a scientific method for mea-
suring the age of the earth: ....then one must take measurements of
quantities of the substances involved in that process which exist here
on earth. For example, a constant process here on earth that has
been very consistent and regular in its behavior is the falling of cosmic
dust onto the earth's surface from outer space (as well as on the sur-
face of the moon and the surface of Mars). But, when those evolu-
tionary scientists measured the speed of that process and the total
amount of that substance on the face of the earth (and the moon and
Mars), they ended up with a total age very close to the biblical age,
approximately 6,000 years.
Notice they thought that the first space capsule to land on the
moon would sink into an enormous amount of cosmic dust and be
lost, because there are no weather conditions on the moon to alter its
location. But, when the first space capsule landed on the moon they
found exactly the quantity of cosmic dust as would be expected for a
biblical age of the moon. The difference in quantity is about a million
times more for evolution; enough to cover a tall building. Not only
that, but those little moon-cars with wheels could not work riding on
top of billions of years of cosmic dust. This dating method of the age
of the earth, moon and Mars was then rejected by the evolutionary
scientists because it did not give them the results that they wanted,
regardless of the obvious soundness of this method.
The material content of that dust is easily traceable. On earth,
most of it that fell on land would have been washed down into the
oceans by rain, so that the oceans ought to have everything which fell
into the oceans plus much of what fell on land. But, they can't find
billions of years of it anywhere on earth, land or sea. How could
billions of years of cosmic dust disappear from the surface of the

4
earth, moon and Mars? .. it's not possible.
There have been also MANY, MANY other good and sound dat-
ing methods which were also proposed and tested by evolutionary
scientists (their own people), but those were also rejected and denied
because those methods did not give them the results they wanted.
Pretty soon those evolutionary scientists had trash cans that were
overflowing with rejected dating methods. Eventually, they needed big
dumpsters to handle all the abundance of evidence they were throw-
ing out.
The truth is, there is an abundance of sound evidence that the
earth is very young, much more evidence than the evidence that the
earth is old. (like comparing an ant to an elephant) Also, this demon-
strates how the evolutionary scientists start with their assumed theory
and then dishonestly try to twist the evidence to make it fit their pre-
viously invented conclusions........ and reject the majority of the evi-
dence that doesn't agree with it. (Notice their conclusions are al-
ways formed before the evidence is found. Christians also form their
conclusions before examining the scientific evidence, but that is be-
cause they have already received the information from a faithful guide,
from God above. The evolutionists don't have any guide from above.
The important question is: which explanation does the evidence fit?)
There are only very few dating methods that the evolutionary
scientists use to show an old age for the earth,..... and the only reason
why those methods were accepted by them was that they give the old-
est age possible, not because they are better methods. However, the
vast majority of the best evidence still shows the earth to be very
young; the biblical age. In addition, those methods that give the old-
est age are noticeably less stable because they are based on a pro-
cess that probably has changed over the years due to things like the
Genesis flood (which the evolutionists also reject).
The flood would have caused changes in the earth's atmosphere
and crust, which in turn would have caused changes in the aging pro-
cess of almost everything, including humans. The Bible says that
people lived much longer before the flood. Noah lived to 950 years of
age. Gen. 9:29 (also read: Gen. 5) (Notice the 2014 film Noah is

5
loaded with errors.) (Noah's ark has been seen by witnesses on the
top of mount Ararat, in Turkey, usually buried in snow. It is box shap-
ed, not boat shaped, as clearly stated in the Bible. Mount Ararat is not
the tallest mountain, but it is a very difficult mountain to climb. There-
fore, it is not believable that the construction of that object took place
in that location. (Its box shape was one of the few things they got right
in the 2014 film Noah.) Its purpose was to float, not travel. It was
also the right size for the job; that box shaped construction on the top
of that mountain is the same size as Noah's arch clearly stated in the
Bible. Gen 6:15) (Notice that there was never any rain before the
flood. It was much more humid then and a good layer of dew watered
the ground every morning. Gen. 2:5,6) (There were no rainbows in the
sky before the flood. God made a promise by the rainbow, after the
flood, never to destroy the earth by water again. Gen. 9:13-16)
Fossils themselves cannot be formed unless they are buried
quickly and entirely, as in a flood. A plant or animal which dies under
normal conditions, out on open land, never, never, never forms into a
fossil. Trees or animals that die in normal conditions out on open land
always rot, decompose and fall apart (or get eaten by other animals/
insects) before they could ever be formed into fossils. Without the
flood, fossils of entire creatures in sediment underground could not
exist.
What's more, even with their supposed billions of years, canyons
like the Grand Cannon could never have been formed by that teeny
weeny river that flows at its base. The Grand Cannon must have
been formed by a giant flood. In the oceans, hundreds of underwater
cities have been found, which obviously were at some time in the past
above the water line of the ocean. There are more than 200 known
underwater cities in the Mediterranean alone. Many of those under-
water structures are explained very extensively in the History Chan-
nel's documentary series Ancient Aliens, 2010, season 2, episode 3.

2Peter 3:5,6 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of
God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water
and in the water: (the Genesis flood) 6 Whereby the world that then

6
was, being overflowed with water, perished: In the original Greek:
2Peter 3:5,6

6 The Genesis
flood is of the utmost importance in the comparison between evolution
and creation.

The most widely used scientific method to determine the age of

fossils (not rocks) used by evolutionists is by a process known as car-
bon dating..... a technique that measures the rate of decay and radio-
activity in an organic object. Carbon-14, is not a stable isotope, so it
decays over time, whereas carbon-12 does not decay, so by measur-
ing the two against each other, they're able to get a general age. In
order to do carbon dating, you need organic material. You need wood
or bone..... something that lived. A piece of stone can't be carbon-
dated.
This method is only used for younger fossils, but for fossils that
are supposedly millions of years old, they say that there is no scientific
method that will allow anyone to date the object or bone itself. (which
is another lie) (Notice This is another case when they don't get the
results they want, (like the cosmic dust on the moon) so they find a
deceptively covert way to reject their own methodology, just for certain
cases, without letting anyone know that their own methodology dis-
proves their own theory,...... and then find a different way to get the
results they want.)
They say they have to date a dinosaur bone according to the age
of the deposits in which it is found. In other words, they select an ob-
ject next to where the bone was found and use that, assuming its
proximity must be a result of being the same age. (How can they date
an object next to the bone, but not the bone? Something smells fishy.
More than likely, the object they use has an assumed age. They pro-
bably don't even date it. (But you're not supposed to notice that.) They
probably just look at it and give it any age they want, claiming that it
has a reputation of regularly being found next to other objects of the
assumed age they whimsically decided to give it. In other words, the

7
object has the age they assumed because they assumed the age it
has. They present evidence as fact, which is nothing more than their
own whimsical invention rather than scientific evidence.)
Of course, they can also try different objects and get different re-
sults. Then, they can just pick the one that gives them the assumed
age they already knew they wanted, before they started, which they
already knew they wouldn't get if they used carbon-dating on the di-
nosaur bone. Carbon-dating cannot be used on any fossil to give a
very old age, because there are no very old fossils. Carbon-dating
never gives a super old age on any fossil. (ALL fossils were formed
during the same flood approximately 4,000 years ago. Even if carbon
dating gave them an age ten times more than the true age, it still
wouldn't be anywhere close to the millions of years they want.)
Notice how they completely ignore the level of sediment in which
the bone is found. (All this doesn't make sense, does it? It smells
fishy. That's because they don't want to tell anyone that their own
dating methods disprove their own theories. The real reason they
won't carbon-date a dinosaur bone itself is that their carbon-dating
methods give them an age that they don't want. They must reject their
own methodology without letting anyone know that they are rejecting
it. How is it possible that they can carbon-date other bones, but not a
dinosaur bone?) They always reject any evidence that doesn't agree
with their theory. Lies, lies, lies, lies. Their trash cans , rather, big
dumpsters are overflowing with an abundance of their own rejected
evidence.
The dating methods they use to date things that are supposedly
millions of years old are three main types: radiocarbon dating, potas-
sium-argon dating and uranium-lead dating. All of these are classified
as Radiometric dating (often called radioactive dating), which are
tech-iques used to date either rocks or carbon, usually based on a
comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring
radioactive isotope and its decay products, using known decay rates.
However, these dating methods have to assume that the rate of decay
has always been constantly the same over a very long time, which is

8
impossible to prove and is probably incorrect.
Going back to carbon-dating .. carbon-dating also assumes
that the rate of decay of radiocarbon, carbon-14, has always been
constantly the same over a long period of time. But likewise, this is an
assumption which is probably incorrect. It is impossible to prove, and
probably not true because carbon-14 is produced as a result of certain
cosmic ray interactions in the atmosphere. But if those cosmic ray in-
teractions changed in the past, which they certainly would have done
if the Genesis flood was true, then the production of carbon-14 that is
present in the atmosphere at the time when it was fixed in whatever
fossil that is being tested, will not have been the same as it is now,
thereby giving them inaccurate results.
It is possible that before the Genesis flood (about 4,000 years
ago) there was an enormous constant layer of water vapor in the
earth's atmosphere that would not have been there any longer after
the flood (During the flood it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Modern
natural cloud formations can't produce rain for 40 days and 40 nights.)
..... that layer of water vapor was different than cloud formations that
produced regular rain after the flood. (Before the flood it never rained.
It was much more humid then (which slowed down evaporation) and a
good layer of dew watered the ground every morning. Gen. 2:5,6)
That water vapor layer in the atmosphere was probably in a dif-
ferent position than cloud formations afterwards, too. (It would have
produced no rain until the flood.) It would have been there constantly,
kind of like the ozone layer is now. It would have assisted the ozone
layer in protecting against harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun, which
in turn would reduce the aging process of almost everything, especial-
ly humans. This is exactly what would throw those evolutionary dating
methods completely off.
That extra layer of water vapor would also produce a greenhouse
effect on the entire earth, which would explain why the north and
south poles were ice free many years ago, before the flood. (Ancient
maps of Antarctica have been found that show the exact land for-
mation with no ice on it.) That extra constant layer of water vapor

9
would also explain why there was a change in air-pressure, which
would cause other unusual changes in how plants and animals grow.
In some modern experiments, they double atmospheric air-pressure
inside an airtight chamber which causes changes such as small
cherry tomato plants to grow to the size of trees and produce giant
tomatoes. Many animals grew to much larger sizes in those days.
Even very large footprints of humans in fossilized mud have been
found.

The theory of evolution also teaches that the levels of sediment

in the ground are progressively older as you dig down. Supposedly,
older levels are always under younger levels and older fossils are
always found under younger fossils. But in reality, what is actually
found is a mass of chaos like what would be expected in a gigantic
world-wide flood. At times, (not often) what is supposed to be younger
levels of sediment are found in very large areas under supposedly
older levels of sediment. All fossils are always found in random
levels, as would be expected in a flood. Sometimes, fossils of entire
trees are found standing upright through many levels of sediment;
exactly what would be expected in a flood. In addition, in the theory
of evolution it would be expected that the main ingredient in the
content of the layers of sediment ought to come from the cosmic dust
which is continually falling on the earth's surface. But the material
content of the sediment is much different from the content of cosmic
dust.
Trees or animals that die in normal conditions out on open land
always rot, decompose and fall apart (or get eaten by other animals/
insects) before they could ever be formed into fossils. They must be
buried quickly and entirely, as in a flood, or they don't form into fossils.
Also, if an animal died under normal conditions, how many years
would it take for naturally forming sediment to cover the animal? Mil-
lions? What would happen to the remains of the animal in the mean-
time? If the Genesis flood is true, then all of the fossils and sediment
are exactly the same age. They were all buried, in the same flood, at
the same time, approximately 4,000 years ago.

10
 This also explains why there are giant deposits of vegetation and
animal life which have formed into petroleum under the ground. If
those plants and animals died slowly year by year, under normal con-
ditions out on open land, they would never have formed those giant
underground deposits of petroleum. Those deposits must have been
formed in one single massive event, such as a giant world-wide flood
pushing all those plants and animals into one area and then covering
them with sediment. Without the flood, those giant underground de-
posits of petroleum could not exist!!! Evolutionary scientists cannot
provide any other explanation for the existence of those deposits of
petroleum. Those massive deposits of petroleum are what provide
the enormous production of the entire energy source to run modern
machinery, like gasoline for cars.
Their dating methods don't give consistent ages for the levels of
sediment, which is why those evolutionary scientists always ignore the
levels of sediment whenever they use their dating methods. All the
levels of sediment are the same age. This is why none of the evolu-
tionary paleontologists use levels of sediment to date any of the fos-
sils they find, nor do they ever bother to date the levels of sediment.
(They already know that the results won't agree with their theory,
which they teach as though it is a fact.) This also means that their
theories about the different ages (periods), the Triassic, Jurassic and
Cretaceous are all a bunch of hokum.
Obviously, the dating methods that the evolutionary scientists use
are not stable. In one case a single rock was dated at 516,000,000
years old. While the same rock was dated at 1,111,000,000 years old
using a different method. And the same rock dated at 1,588,000,000
years old using a third method. In addition, they are using the meth-
ods dishonestly, stretching them to fit their theory. They never date
the sediment itself, they date objects found in different random levels
of sediment (which they can easily twist however they want), and ig-
nore which level they were found in. How is it possible that they can
date an object next to a dinosaur bone but not the dinosaur bone it-
self? (Smells fishy!) Answer they know how to select whichever
object they want and come up with any results they want..... and ob-

11
jects which they date at extremely different ages are always found in
random levels, in any of the levels of sediment, which they refuse to
confess openly.
There have also been found, in numerous different locations,
fossils of human footprints running through fossilized mud along with
dinosaur footprints. Where the two paths cross, the human footprint
actually steps inside the dinosaur footprint. (see video: The Delk
Track on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA)
The theory of evolution teaches that the dinosaurs were extinct
millions of years before the first humans existed. This is another ex-
ample of evidence that the evolutionists have to throw in the trash.
When Marco Polo first went to China, the emperor there had
dragons (dinosaurs) as royal pets. In the enormous Likouala swamp
in the Congo, central Africa, 50 foot crocodiles have been seen. At
www.youtube.com there are videos of Nile river crocodiles that look
that long. Search for crocodile attacks on www.youtube.com. In
addition, other larger dinosaurs have been seen, by local natives,
which always chase away all of the normal size crocodiles and hypos.
The local natives there have seen those dinosaurs regularly. But,
you'll have to excuse them, they didn't know that those animals were
extinct millions of years ago. All they know is that they've seen them.
(see documentary called: Dinosaurs and the Bible)
Thousands (not hundreds) of sightings of the Loch Ness monster
have been reported in Scotland. Even in America, near Burlington,
Vermont, in lake Champlain there have been many sightings of a
creature very similar to the Loch Ness monster. The local people
there call it: Champ. The sightings of Champ go way back to the
native American Indians before the first European settlers came to
America.
The Bible talks about the existence of giant creatures on earth
existing at the same time that human beings lived. The biblical
description sounds like a fire breathing dragon (dinosaur). (Job 41)
There are many ancient legends of valiant men who go out to slay a
fire breathing dragon, who were afterwards treated as heroes. (ex-
ample: Beowulf. The real story of Beowulf (not the liberally altered

12
movie) can be downloaded free at www.gutenberg.org) (also, there is
a Norse legend called the Vlsunga saga from which Richard Wag-
ner, the German classical composer, made his opera Der Ring des
Nibelungen which includes Wagner's famous piece, Ride of the
Valkyries. (see it on www.youtube.com with the Berlin Philharmonic
Orchestra) It is the legend of how Sigfried the hero rescues the
princess Broomhilda from the fire breathing dragon, named Fafnir.)
(Web search: fire breathing dragons)
This heroic killing off of those dangerous creatures is a much
more realistic explanation for the almost, but not entire, extinction of
the dinosaurs. Before modern firearms were invented, a poisoned
arrow would have done the job. (In north America, in the last few
centuries, wolves, jaguars, buffalo and grizzly bears almost became
extinct, because people tried to kill them off. They shot them down as
often as possible.)
Interestingly, in many museums they discovered that dinosaur
bones (especially Tyrannosaurus Rex) are radioactive and have to be
treated with special lead paint in order to prevent danger to the people
visiting the museum. It is possible that ancient man killed off many of
the dinosaurs using radioactivity. (Read about the technological ad-
vancements before the flood in the article: Angels are Aliens, Aliens
are Angels.) Even in modern times, when they first discovered radio-
activity they soon discovered that it was very lethal. This may also
explain why they can't use their normal radioactive dating methods on
dinosaurs; they always get results they don't want..... and their trash
cans , rather, big dumpsters are already over-flowing with rejected
evidence.
In many ancient drawings, engravings and sculptures done by
people many years ago, there has been found an abundance of dino-
saurs (dragons). Sometimes those depictions show dinosaurs eating
people....... or at other times they even show a person riding on the
back of a dinosaur. On the History Channel documentary Ancient
Aliens (season 4, episode 10) it shows many examples of these. In
modern times, they have the bones of dinosaurs in museums, but for
the modern cases of bones dug out of the ground, the appearance of

13
the skin and flesh can only be guessed at. Whereas, in those ancient
drawings, engravings and sculptures, those artists show the outer ap-
pearance in reality how they saw the living animal for real.

Many years ago it was commonly taught that humans evolved

from apes. Notice that this theory was originally proposed with no
evidence whatsoever. It was assumed simply because the body parts
of apes are very similar to humans. Afterwards, numerous times, fos-
sils of intermediate forms between ape and man were found, (the
missing link) always using very scanty meager fragments of bones.
So scanty that it was very easy for them to invent anything they want-
ed. In addition, those bone fragments were usually found in different
places and probably didn't even belong to the same creature. Lies,
lies, lies, lies, lies. But every time there were other highly respected
evolutionary scientists (their own people) who disproved the validity of
those fossils. How about that?! An honest evolutionist?! No real
missing link between ape and man has ever been found. This is
why it is called missing.
As a result, eventually it was necessary to change the theory
and propose that man did not evolve from apes, but rather, apes and
men both evolved from a common ancestor, which brings up some
questions. First, if their evidence that man evolved from ape was so
meager and easily disproved, then, is their evidence that man and ape
both evolved from a common ancestor also so meager and easily
disproved? (Answer: Just like the first theory, they also proposed the
second theory with no evidence whatsoever, zip, zero, nada. They
didn't even have a name for the common ancestor. It didn't have a
name because it doesn't exist. But, they were expecting to find some
evidence........ eventually....... some day. No laughter, please, folks,
this is not a comedy.)
Second, what is that common ancestor? Why didn't it have a
name? (Answer: It doesn't have a name because it doesn't exist,
nobody has ever seen one..... and there is still no believable evi-
dence that it ever did exist. They invented this theory with no evi-

14
dence whatsoever. It was proposed simply to dodge the issue that
they could never find any intermediate forms for their first theory. All
of the links are missing!!! No fossil of any creature half-way between
any two species has ever been found. Not just between man and ape,
ANY TWO SPECIES!!!)
Third, evolution teaches that species are always improving due
to natural selection,....... so why did man improve but the apes got
worse, which supposedly evolved from the same common ances-
tor? (reverse evolution, a clear contradiction) Fourth, why are there
no modern species more similar to humans? And fifth, why do mo-
dern apes continue to exist, which are supposedly inferior (reverse
evolution, a clear contradiction), but the common ancestor is now
extinct, which is supposed to be superior to modern apes? (reverse
natural selection, a clear contradiction)
It is true that paleontologists give a name to every fossil they find,
but none of the fossils ever found have they officially given the honor
of being that common ancestor. Why? First, all of those supposed
candidates for the common ancestor look like some form of extinct
apes, which would be a big fat embarrassment because they have
already confessed that man did not evolve from ape. (Notice those
fossils don't look like intermediate forms, they look like apes, pure
100% apes.)
Second, none of those supposed candidates for the common
ancestor have a link (intermediate form) to the specie before or after
it. What good is it, if it is a dead end? No intermediate form between
any two species has ever been found. There aren't any. Third, they
don't want the embarrassment of having someone come along and
disprove it, just as it has already happened to all the other missing
links, which was why they had to change their theory to man and
ape both evolving from a common ancestor instead of man evolving
from ape. Notice the embarrassment is even more intense when it
is one of their own people, an evolutionary scientist, who disproves
their missing links. Now, nobody ever attempts to disprove their
common ancestor because they have learned how to invent a com-
mon ancestor without really having one.

15
 Fourth, lately they have been using the general term hominids
for that supposed common ancestor, (why is the word hominids
plural but the common ancestor singular? Answer -- they don't want
to pick one so that it can't be disproved.) This is a deceptive way of
inventing a name for something that should have a different name;
don't forget, they all look like a group of extinct apes.
Those paleontologists have found a few fossils of different kinds
of extinct apes in the last few decades, that look extremely different
from each other. So, they put all those different kinds of extinct apes
into one inappropriate group and changed their name to: hominids.
(web search: hominid fossil images) Take a look at them. Even a
child can tell they don't belong in a group other than apes, and if they
don't belong in a group other than apes then they shouldn't have a
name other than apes. THEY ARE APES, AND SHOULD BE
CALLED APES, NOT HOMINIDS. The absence of a name is an
extreme embarrassment to the theory of the common ancestor,
which should not be a diversified group, but rather an individual
specie. The common ancestor has no name because it doesn't
exist!!!
This name problem is kind of like taking a gorilla, a chimpanzee,
an orangutan, a baboon and a small Capuchin monkey and putting
them all in the same group and giving them a new name. (and then
claiming that the entire diversified group is somehow the one and only
common ancestor) (Internet search: ape images. See how many
different types there are.) Normally, the name apes could be used,
but the evolutionists can't use that name because the theory they
invented, when they had no evidence, states that ape and man both
evolved from a common ancestor. So, the name apes won't
work, despite the fact that the hominids are nothing but a bunch of
extinct apes.
Therefore, it can be concluded that those hominids are just
different species of extinct apes with a new name slapped on them
to avoid embarrassment, so that they can continue with the second
theory they invented, with no evidence, rather than going back to the
first theory they invented, with no evidence. People don't trust scien-

16
tists who are always teaching their theories as absolute and undeni-
able facts and then changing those theories and then start teaching
the new theories as though they are absolute and undeniable facts,
...... not theory.
The existence of extinct species of apes does not mean that they
were changing into something else. (Some people say that now there
are many more extinct species than living species. Some say that 97-
99% of all species that existed in the past are now extinct.) The
theory that species slowly and gradually change into other species is
falsely assumed by the evolutionists with no evidence whatsoever.
(assume means to make an ass (donkey's rear end) of you and
me.)
The name hominid is used instead of ape to avoid the embar-
rassment of going back to the first theory that man evolved from
apes, which they have already confessed is not true. They insist on
sticking to the second theory which they invented, when they had no
evidence, rather than going back to the first theory they invented,
when they had no evidence. The first theory, that man evolved from
apes, they used to teach in universities as an absolutely undeniable
fact. Now, they teach the second theory as an absolutely undeniable
fact,...... not theory.
Also, it is more difficult to disprove a group rather than an indivi-
dual fossilized creature. Except for the fact that the group does not
even look like it is composed of creatures that belong in any other
group other than apes. And how could such a diversified group all
be the single ancestor of any one specie? (They still refuse to select
any particular one of all those hominids , rather extinct apes, as
the one and only common ancestor between ape and man. (How
can an ape be a common ancestor between ape and man?)
Even back when they were teaching that man evolved from apes, they
refused to select any particular ape, among the extremely diversified
group, as the one and only ancestor of the human race. Now, they
insist that the entire extremely diversified group of hominids is the
one and only common ancestor.)
But, they knew they could get away with slapping any ol' thing

17
together, because almost all the leaders in American universities hate
God so much that they'll go along with the theory of evolution any-
way, no matter how ridiculously it is presented. What do they need
any scientific evidence for? They know they don't need any real evi-
dence. Those people will accept it anyway, no matter what. (This is a
religious matter, not a science matter. The purpose of the theory of
evolution is to deny the existence of God.)
After they've slapped the new name (hominids) on those extinct
apes, then they contract an artist to invent a creature (drawing or
sculpture) that looks exactly half way between ape and man. (It is not
possible to make one single image of an extremely diversified group,
like the hominids , rather extinct apes, so the artist just makes an
image of a human and changes it a little to make it look half-way ape-
ish, and then sticks some fur on it. Also, don't forget, all the hominids
look like apes.)
They don't even have to worry about making their art work look
like any of the fossils of those extremely different looking extinct
hominids , rather extinct apes, which look like apes. (It's not
necessary for them to select one. Nor is it necessary for the artist to
make the art work look like any of the fossil evidence.) They know
that the people who go along with the theory of evolution don't really
care about any real scientific evidence. They've already made up
their minds before they have even looked at the facts.
Try asking them which one of the hominids are they trying to
make their art work look like. Rest assured, they won't say. Just like
how they wouldn't say back when they were teaching that man evolv-
ed from ape; which ape? (a gorilla?, a chimpanzee?, an orangutan?,
a baboon?, a Capuchin monkey?)
And voil, their artist has created the supposed common ances-
tor,...... which looks exactly like those other artistically invented crea-
tures they made back when they were teaching in universities that
man evolved from apes. How about that!?! The artistically fabricated
portrayal of the evidence for their second theory looks exactly like
the artistically fabricated portrayal of the evidence for their first
theory. (Remember, all the artist really did was to half-way ape-iffy

18
the image of a human being and stick some fur on it. Don't forget, all
the hominids look like apes.) In fact, now they don't even need an art-
ist. They could just use those same old drawings and statues they
used before. The museums and science books could just slap a new
name on the old art work. (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a
comedy.)
Interestingly, when they first started teaching their theory of a
common ancestor, the science books didn't use art work for the
common ancestor. In their science books they showed a time-line
with drawings of all the species along the supposed linage of the
history (supposed evolution) of the human race. Notice that none of
the creatures on the time-line had any intermediate forms between
any of the species. All of the links between all of the species have
always been missing. 00.00% exist. They have a perfect score:
absolute zero.
Those paleontologists have spent an enormous amount of time
just trying to find just one missing link between man and the supposed
previous common ancestor. But they normally don't tell anyone that
they don't have any intermediate form between any of the species.
Every intermediate form is missing!!! No intermediate fossil between
any two species has ever been found. 00.00% exist. They have a
perfect score: absolute zero.
In their science books, back then (before they invented the name
hominid), at the end of the supposed linage there was a drawing of a
man next to a drawing of an ape with an arrow to both coming from
the same question mark: ?. Obviously, instead of a drawing of a
creature, they used the question mark, ?, which represented the
common ancestor. They used a question mark, ?, because they
didn't know what the supposed common ancestor looked like. No-
body had ever seen one, so it was impossible to make a drawing of
it. They had no evidence at all. The common ancestor never ex-
isted!!! Yet they were teaching it as though it was a fact. What differ-
ence does it make whether or not they had any scientific evidence?
They know that the people who go along with the theory of evolution
don't really care about any real scientific evidence. They had already

19
made up their minds that evolution is a fact, not a theory. (This is a
religious matter, not a science matter. The purpose of the theory of
evolution is to deny the existence of God.)
Fifth, they have no evidence whatsoever that any of those ex-
tremely different looking supposed common ancestors (inappropri-
ately named hominids instead of apes) are ancestors of human
beings at all. They have assumed that with no evidence. Those crea-
tures did not slowly and gradually change into human beings and
those evolutionary scientists cannot prove that they did. They would
need many fossils of creatures at every minor alteration from the
common ancestor, at every slightest stage, all the way to human
beings. But that evidence does not exist. They can't even find one
half-way between, much less can they find a series of stage-by-stage
gradual changes.
There ought to be an abundance of those things, at every slight-
est stage of change. There are people who wear T-shirts that have
drawings of an ape changing into a human, a drawing for each slight-
est stage of change. But that is pure fiction, which doesn't exist in real
life. Oh yeah, there are museums that paid an artist to make some
fake sculpture figures that look like how a slowly changing creature
ought to look, like the artist did on the T-shirts. But that's not real, it's
pure art work. Lies, lies, lies, lies.
The only real thing they can show is that they have found only a
few fossils of extremely different kinds of extinct apes that are no
longer living, which they don't want to confess are nothing but apes.
(Note those creatures are not intermediate forms. They are apes.
100% pure apes.) So, they slap on a different name to avoid the
embarrassment of going back to their first theory that man evolved
from ape. People don't trust scientists who are constantly changing
their theory and then teaching the new theory as an undeniable
fact, when they used to teach the previous theory as an undeniable
fact.
If it were true that those creatures were ancestors of human be-
ings then they could take any of the modern apes and breed them
until they slowly and gradually change into human beings. But they

20
can't do that, and never will, because it's impossible. The DNA code
itself won't permit it. No specie has ever slowly and gradually chang-
ed into a different specie. God created all the species to stay within
their own groups. Each specie has limits to how much it can change,
from one generation to the next. The theory of evolution must reject
the existence of those limits. No fossil of any intermediate form be-
tween any two species has ever been found, never, zip, zero, nada.
All of the links between all of the species are all missing. 00.00%
exist. They have a perfect score: absolute zero.
Any of the more recently found evidence of such intermediate
forms should be examined with the greatest suspicion. Those evolu-
tionary scientists have a long standing reputation of lying and stretch-
ing things to make them fit their theory. In addition, they also have a
long standing reputation of rejecting and ignoring the majority of the
evidence that doesn't fit their theory, like the majority of the sound
dating methods that give a very young age for the earth (The differ-
ence is a million to one. The number million is very large, not small.)
or like how all fossils are always found in random levels of sediment.
Every single paleontologist knows it, but they never openly face the
fact and confess that it doesn't fit their theory. They know their the-
ory is a lie...... and they like it that way. They're not in the truth bus-
iness, they're in the lie business.
Whenever a young person is starting out as an evolutionary sci-
entist, they have to learn the customary evolutionary style of presen-
tation from older scientists. Otherwise, they run right into a brick
wall, kind of like a bird inside a building for the first time. The bird
flies directly at a window thinking that he's going to fly out through the
opening, but then the bird hits the glass, and sometimes hurts himself
badly. Any new young scientist has to learn how to dodge the brick
walls that disprove evolution, in order to progress. They have to
learn how to lie in order to get around the truth; the brick walls.
At first, the new young evolutionary scientists don't know how
much evidence has already been thrown out in the trash. Otherwise,
being new in the trade, they might start looking for what they think is a
good idea, new evidence, without realizing that it has already been

21
thrown out in the trash. After all, what would happen if they tried to
date the age of the earth, levels of sediment or a dinosaur bone? Or,
even worse, what if they dis-proved one of the intermediate fossils?
They have to learn to keep their stupid mouth shut!!! They have to
learn how to keep the evidence that has already been thrown in the
trash, in the trash, without digging it up again. The older scientists do
not like having to look at that stuff all over again. Those youngsters
have to learn how to just follow standard procedures without asking
questions. They also have to learn that they don't need any real evi-
dence at all. They have to learn to lie, and get good at it. (It's impossi-
ble to progress without consciously knowing that their theory is a lie.)
The evolutionary scientists don't really need any evidence any-
more, because they already have almost everyone believing that the
theory of evolution is undeniably true. All across America, in every
major university, the theory of evolution is taught as a fact for which
they no longer need to bother with presenting evidence. They always
teach it as though it is undeniably true, usually with no evidence pre-
sented whatsoever. They also teach it as being very important and
are constantly pushing it even when it's irrelevant to the subject being
taught..... And the meager evidence they, on rare occasion, bother to
present is always twisted somehow and irrelevant to evolution, pro-
ving nothing. (This is a religious matter, not a scientific matter. Re-
member, the main purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the
existence of God.)
If you are standing in a group of ten thousand people who are all
looking up and saying that the sky is green, that doesn't mean that the
sky is green. Large groups of people all saying the same lie can be
very persuasive on neutral observers. The truth is that the sky is blue
and those ten thousand people are all liars. In science those evolu-
tionists love doing things like that. They know perfectly well that the
sky is not green, but they know how influential a large group of people
can be.
Those universities are hereby disqualified. Their diplomas, in
these fields of study, are hereby rendered incompetent/dishonest by
the abundance of their own evidence against them, which they them-

22
selves have rejected. Take a look through their trash cans , rather,
big dumpsters at how much of their own abundance of evidence they
have thrown out because it didn't fit their theory. (By now, they need
many large garbage trucks to haul it all away.)
Be careful, those evolutionary scientists have a long standing
reputation of falsifying or stretching evidence to make it fit their the-
ory. One time they even found (fabricated artistically) a creature ex-
actly half way between man and ape (the Nebraska Man), back
when they were teaching that man evolved from apes. Later, it was
discovered that the entire creature was artistically fabricated out of
finding one tooth...... which was afterwards determined to be from an
extinct pig. Notice even until today, when they show their supposed
evidence, it is always presented with artistic fabrication; the artist de-
serves most of the credit. (Another example of a deliberate hoax simi-
lar to the Nebraska Man was the Piltdown Man.)
Besides, even if it is true that many years ago there existed some
other types of apes closer to humans than modern apes, it still does
not mean that those things are ancestors of human beings. Those
evolutionary scientists are making inappropriate and unjustifiable as-
sumptions. (assume means to make an ass (donkey's rear end) of
you and me) No specie has ever slowly and gradually changed
into a different specie. No intermediate form of any creature between
any two species has ever honestly been found, zip, never, zero, nada.
They have a perfect score: absolute zero.
Anything presented by that type of people should be examined
with the greatest suspicion. Lies, lies, lies, lies. Those people have a
reputation for being very dishonest, in the past. Why do you think this
article is called The Lie of Evolution? If the theory of evolution
were true, the ground would be loaded with an enormous abundance
of intermediate forms, at every slightest stage of changing into some-
thing else, all over the earth (with many intermediate forms between
every specie), not just a few rare cases that are easily disproved by
any honest paleontologist. (honest paleontologist? Does such a be-
ing really exist? The only honest ones were the ones that disproved
those fossils of missing links between man and ape. Since they

23
changed their theory to the diversified group called: the one and
only common ancestor, honest paleontologists have become ex-
tinct. Or, it could be said that since no real common ancestor is ever
presented/selected, then no paleontologist is ever necessary/involv-
ed.)
There should be many, many more intermediate fossils than
fossils of regular species. The mere fact that their intermediate forms
are always based on very few rare cases itself disproves their
theory,..... and should raise suspicion of the honesty of the meager
pitiful evidence they do find. The very nature of their theory of slow
and gradual changing species demands that the quantity of interme-
diate forms must be many, many more than the quantity of regular
forms. In fact, what is now considered regular forms would be
nothing more than a temporary short, short, short, short, brief, brief,
brief, brief spot on a continuum of continual change. The existence of
species alone maintaining the same form for thousands of years
completely disproves the theory of evolution.
Thousands of years ago human artists made images of animals
that look exactly like all of those same animals today. Horses have
always looked like horses and nothing but horses for thousands of
years. They couldn't even come up with a Mr. Ed, a talking horse.
More recent findings of missing links always have very scanty rare
evidence and the evolutionary scientists are now always embarrassed
to say which theory they're trying to prove; man evolving from ape
or man and ape both evolving from a common ancestor, because all
of their evidence of the diversified group they call: the one and only
common ancestor always look like apes.
Despite the fact that they've been teaching the second theory
instead of the first for decades, the general public still thinks of man
evolving from ape whenever they hear the subject of evolution.
Whether the evolutionists like it or not, the general public can't get the
first theory out of their minds. (Probably because people don't trust a
scientist who teaches one theory as being an undeniable fact and
then changes it to a different theory, and then teaches the next the-
ory as being an undeniable fact. Also, their diversified group which is

24
supposedly the one and only common ancestor always look like
apes.)
Not only that, but, most people don't even understand the pur-
pose of using the name hominids instead of apes, especially since
all the hominids look like apes. The people look at it, and can't figure
out why they changed the name of those creatures from apes to
hominids. What, on earth, do they need this second theory of the
common ancestor for? Why do they have to call something by a
different name? The average person doesn't seem to understand that
the reason they changed the theory was that they couldn't find any
evidence that man evolved from apes,.... and, discovering a lot of
species of extinct apes doesnt indicate that they were ancestors of
humans at all.
But, that doesn't matter. As long as they're a massive group,
they can keep looking up and saying that the sky is green, and people
will believe it's green anyway. Those evolutionary scientists might
even invent a third theory someday and teach that as being abso-
lutely and undeniably true in their universities, that don't deserve to
be called universities because they tolerate this type of irrational and
dishonest hokum, while rejecting the enormous bulk of facts that sup-
port creation (young earth) much more than evolution (old earth).
Rest assured, God will give special wisdom to people who reject the
education and diplomas from those universities. Their diplomas be-
long in the trash along with all their rejected scientific evidence. Every
one who accepts their diplomas will never know God's wisdom.
The quantity of evidence is like comparing the size of a dishonest
ant to the size of an honest elephant, a million to one difference. They
have dishonestly described an ant hill as though it were a mountain. It
is as though they have tunnel vision, like horses with blinders next to
their eyes to keep them from seeing anything other than what is di-
rectly in front of them. (Which is usually evidence that is irrelevant and
insignificant to any main point. It must also be noted that almost all of
the meager pitiful evidence presented for evolution is immaterial and
impertinent, which proves nothing.)
For example, they show that in every specie, offspring are always

25
somehow different than their parents, from which they falsely assume
to mean that those creatures will eventually change into a completely
different specie, little by little. Or, they'll talk about things like natural
selection, mutation or genetic drift, all of which are assumed to
produce positive variations, but without presenting any evidence. Or,
they'll take two different types of dogs and mix them together and
claim they got a new specie that didn't exist before. Yet, they can't
figure out that what they got was just another dog, which is not any
other specie other than a dog. They're not able to understand that
their assumptions are faulty. No specie has ever changed into a
different specie....... and genetic drift is falsely assumed. Genetic
DNA is fixed, it doesn't drift.
Go ahead, take a look at them on any web page about evolution.
Notice don't waste time looking at the teaching of the theory it-
self,..... look for the evidence. They have a bad habit of teaching their
theory as a fact without showing any evidence at all. They are also
very good at beating around the bush, and running in circles about
things that don't matter. They're experts at making mountains out of
ant hills. The truth is, that it may be a very long job and a very time
consuming job trying to find any important evidence at all. (Other than
irrelevant insignificant ant hills, which they talk about as though they
were mountains.)
They know they don't need any evidence. The people who follow
their theory don't care about evidence. The pertinent facts are, for
example, how no specie has ever slowly and gradually changed into a
different specie. The DNA code itself won't permit it. No fossil of any
intermediate form between any two species has ever been found,
never, zip, zero, nada. All of the links between all of the species are
all missing. 00.00% exist. They have a perfect score: absolute zero.
Or, how the earth is young, not old. They're very good at dodging the
important stuff, and focusing on the trivial.
And what about the missing links (many stage-by-stage inter-
mediate forms) of the specie before their supposed ancestor of the
human race? Their common ancestor is a dead end. And the mis-
sing links (many stage-by-stage intermediate forms) of the supposed

26
specie before that? And the missing links (many stage-by-stage
intermediate forms) of the supposed specie before that? Where are
their intermediate forms? There should be many, many intermediate
forms at every slightest alteration of change from one specie into
another. Each specie, including species not related to the supposed
linage of human beings, needs evidence of slow and gradual change
(many stage-by-stage intermediate forms) of each animal at every
slightest stage of progress...... from a single cell organism all the way
up to the modern species. The evidence of those stage-by-stage
links between each specie does not exist. Their links are ALL
missing, 00.00% exist. They have a perfect score: absolute zero.
They can't even find one half-way intermediate link, much less
each stage-by-stage continuum of gradual changes. There is no such
thing as any intermediate form of any creature at all, never, none,
zip, zero, nada. No specie has ever slowly and gradually changed
into a different specie. In some of their museums they have figures of
creatures gradually changing into something else, but that is done
exclusively with art work. The artist deserves all the credit. They're in
the lie business, not the truth business,.... and they like it that way.
Or, maybe they cant tell the difference between the truth and a lie.
Well, the psychologists in those universities cant fix this problem, so
maybe theyre just as bad. (see article on: Self-Love and Self-Es-
teem)
Without a complete set of links (many intermediate forms at
every slightest stage of change) between each specie throughout the
entire evolution of man, their ancestor, inappropriately named
hominids , (which should be called apes) is a useless error and a
dead end. Notice, even if they did use the name apes (going back to
the first theory), it would still be necessary for them to select one from
the many different types of apes as the ancestor of humans. (Dont
forget, links between ape and man dont exist.) It is extremely un-
realistic to imagine that all of the exceedingly different types of apes
are somehow ALL the one and only ancestor of humans. They
refuse to pick one so that it could never be disproved, like ALL the
other missing links have been disproved. (by their own people) By

27
never selecting one, it eliminates the possibility that it could ever be
disproved.
Is it really true that there is not even one evolutionary scientist
who will stand up and confess that this common ancestor (the as-
sortment of extremely different hominids , rather, extinct apes)
is/are false? They have already confessed that man did not evolve
from apes, so now they also need to confess that man did not evolve
from a variety of very different, inappropriately named Hominids ,
rather, extinct apes: the one and only common ancestor. (Why is
the common ancestor singular and also plural at the same time?)
(How could all those extremely different looking hominids , rather,
extinct apes, all be ancestors of humans, all at the same time? Why
don't they select one? Answer: First, they don't have to. People who
hold to the theory of evolution don't care about any real evidence.
Second, if they selected any specific one, it would leave them open to
be disproved, like all the other missing links. By never selecting one,
it can never be disproved.) Is there really not even one honest com-
petent person among all those evolutionists who will stand up and
confess?
No specie has ever slowly and gradually changed into a different
specie. None of those hominids , rather, extinct apes, was ever
the ancestor of human beings and they cannot prove otherwise. They
will even make false claims, like: those hominids walked in an up-
right position like humans, not like regular apes that walk bent over
with their hands on the ground. But, they won't confess that a lot of
animals are capable of standing upright. Modern apes, bears or even
dogs can be taught to stand up on their rear legs and walk standing
upright. The Meerkat, a small carnivoran belonging to the mongoose
family, found in southern Africa, is famous for standing in a tall upright
position. In the 2006 film Night at the Museum, when the little Capu-
chin monkey, named Dexter, stole the keys and went running off with
them, he ran in an upright position just like a human being would do.

Next, there is the question of creation of life experiments. If

28
indeed it is true that life evolved all by itself, then it would be possible
for a scientist to create (not evolve) living cells in a laboratory from
non-living substances. However, this has never been done. In fact, it
has been proven that at every stage of the development (creation, not
evolution) of a living cell, oxygen cannot be present. Contact with
oxygen would ruin the material substance before it could get to the
next stage of development (creation). But, at the very instant that a
living cell is formed (created), oxygen must be present or else the
living cell would die immediately. The change must be instantaneous:
the absence of oxygen immediately followed by the presence of
oxygen, within seconds. (This is possible only in a laboratory, not out
in the real world) (. and where could you find a place in the real
world with no oxygen? There isn't any.) (All of this is just theory. No
living cell has ever been created from non-living materials.)
Also, don't forget about the extreme complexity of the DNA code
that exists in every living cell for every creature. It would be more be-
lievable that a tornado passing through a junk yard could assemble a
perfectly functional car out of old scattered parts than that a living cell
formed its own DNA code all by itself, by chance. It is not realistic
that living organisms evolved all by themselves, by chance. Ran-
dom chances don't form order, they form disorder. Tornadoes leave
big messes, not functioning cars.
In addition, all of the laboratory attempts to create life always
involve the use of very elaborate complex laboratory equipment and
procedures which could never have existed out in the real world with-
out a creator. (Like the unrealistic condition that some of the develop-
ment stages require a temperature much, much higher than boiling
point, then the tiny product they get must be removed immediately, or
else the high temperature will destroy it; a condition that could only
exist in a laboratory.) (Another unrealistic condition is that all of the
substances they use in their experiments are always in their pure
state, a condition that could never exist out in the real world. They
already know before they start that impure substances would conta-
minate the experiment.)
It is impossible for life to be formed (created, even by a scientific

29
human creator) from non-living substances. How much less could life
have evolved all by itself, by chance...... In fact, if the theory of evo-
lution were true there would be living cells spontaneously forming out
of non-living substances all over the place, every day. But that never
happens in real life. All living things are always born from other living
things; parents always produce children. Living things never evolve
from non-living materials.
But, even if those scientists did create life, in a laboratory, it
would only show that a creator is necessary. If they want to prove the
theory of evolution, they need to show life forming all by itself out in
the real world, not in a laboratory. They themselves would not dare to
waste time attempting to look for such a ridiculous thing. They know it
would be a waste of time because they know perfectly well that the
theory of evolution is not true. They also know that by looking for
such a thing and never finding it, would be more proof against them
that they would have to add to the already abundance of evidence that
they've already thrown out in the trash, into their already overflowing
big dumpsters.
They know they're lying, every time they falsely teach this the-
ory as a fact. They're in the lie business, not the truth business,......
and they like it that way. Only God can create life from non-living ma-
terials. God just spoke the word, and life was formed by His words
alone. Gen 1:24 And God said, let there be ....... and it was so.
God created everything by His words alone. 2Pe 3:5,7 ......that by
the word of God the heavens were of old,..... 7 But the heavens
and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store,
...
And,...... what is this mysterious force that makes everything stick
together, called gravity? Not only does it keep every loose object from
flying off into outer space, but it makes every object hold together so
that it doesn't fall apart and disintegrate, flying apart in every direc-
tion. How does this force work? God makes it work by ordering it so
by His word! Scientists can evaluate the natural laws about what gra-
vity does, but they can't explain how it got there, how it exists or what
makes it do what it does.

30
 On the History channel documentary Ancient Aliens, their scien-
tists (who otherwise would have been evolutionists) propose that the
first life on earth was brought here by extraterrestrials at the begin-
ning. (see my article listed below on: Angels are Aliens, Aliens are
Angels) They only propose this theory because of the obvious absur-
dity of life evolving from non-living materials, all by itself. (If they were
evolutionary scientists they would never confess this.) However, de-
spite the fact that they are right about the absurdity of life evolving
from non-living materials, they seem to forget that even if the first life
started on some other planet as opposed to Earth, it still had to have
had some sort of starting point. They themselves confess that it could
never have evolved all by itself,....... But, they refuse to admit that the
only solution that works is that it could only have been created.
The second involvement of extra-terrestrials they propose is the
development of humans themselves, later on, from lower species by
means of advanced genetic engineering. They recognize the extreme
complexity of humans as compared to any of the lower species and
propose that it could never have happened all by itself by means of
evolution, by chance. Random chances don't form order, they form
disorder. It is interesting how they recognize the absurdity of the the-
ory of evolution,..... and that some other explanation must be neces-
sary, involving some sort of intelligent being(s). Surprisingly, they do
not want to reject the theory of evolution altogether. They combine
their alien theories along with evolution,...... whichever way happens
to be convenient for them.
It is too bad that, like the evolutionists, their theories also reject
the involvement of God, the creator. They just substitute the involve-
ment of a creator God with the involvement of creators that are extra-
terrestrials. They recognize that it is obvious that some type of intelli-
gent being(s), apart from evolution, must have been involved to pro-
duce human existence. But, they don't want to face the obvious ques-
tion: How did the extra-terrestrials come into existence? Those extra-
terrestrial theorists have rejected both evolution and creation, so how
could the extra-terrestrials have come into existence without the pos-

31
sibility of evolving or being created? Answer: God is eternal. God
was never born, He had no starting point. The extra-terrestrials were
created by God, and should be called angels or demons, as they
are called in the Bible. (see my article listed below on: Angels are
Aliens, Aliens are Angels)

Yet another important question would be the change of species

through breeding. If the theory of evolution were true, then it would
be possible to breed animals until they would eventually change into
different species. For example, someone could breed dogs or horses
until eventually they would get cats, elephants or lions. (or at least a
dog or horse with human intelligence or speech, like Mr. Ed, the talk-
ing horse.) People have been breeding dogs and horses for thou-
sands of years, and yet they have gotten nothing but dogs and hor-
ses, that have always been speechless. This completely kills the
theory of evolution absolutely dead.
Parrots and a few other birds can talk, yet it is impossible to
breed them so that they can understand what they say. The only thing
Parrots can do is repeat words out of habit, with no real understand-
ing. Even Koko the gorilla who learned thousands of sign language
vocabulary words doesn't surpass the intelligence level of a dog
taught to do tricks or a parrot that speaks without any real understand-
ing, merely repeating sounds. (see Koko on www.youtube.com) (How
about the little dog in the 1994 film the Mask who unlocked the car
door from inside and opened it by pulling the door handle? Would
Koko be any smarter if she could do that? Teaching an animal to do
tricks does not constitute a conversation or real intellect. Teaching
Koko to do sign language vocabulary words does not surpass teach-
ing a dog to sit up and beg when he wants food.)

How is it possible that the foot of a dog could be half way be-
tween a dog's paw and a horse's hoof? What would it look like? Such
a thing couldn't exist...... and there is no evidence that it ever did exist.
Species cannot slowly and gradually change into other species. All

32
supposed intermediate forms would be impractical and dis-functional.
An animal's foot that was half-way between a dog's paw and a horse's
hoof would be dis-functional. Natural selection would not make such
an impractical, dis-functional and useless animal improve; it would be
useless and inferior, not an improvement. And, in reality, such crea-
tures have never existed. All the types of species throughout history
have always been 100% functional.
If the theory of evolution were true, the presence of species
would not even exist. Every creature would be in a continual state of
change and the majority of creatures would be in some intermediate
stage between what is now considered species. Most of their body
parts would be in some sort of non-functional weird impossible forma-
tions that have never been seen in any fossil, ever. No fossil of any
creature between species has ever been found with dis-functional
intermediate-stage body parts.
The theory of natural selection cannot possibly apply to disfunc-
tional intermediate-stage body parts. Dis-functional intermediate-
stage body parts are not an asset, they are a hindrance, which would
not be an improvement. This is the main reason why the DNA code
has limits to how much a creature can change, from one generation to
the next. The DNA code will not permit intermediate-stage dis-func-
tional body parts. God created all species with normal body parts,
which are at maximum functionality. Deformed freaks of nature are
never improvements on a specie.
The only reason why this theory of intermediate-stage body
parts has been widely accepted between humans and hominids ,
rather, extinct apes, is that most of the body parts are very similar
and a transitional form between most of those body parts would still
be functional during the intermediate-stage. First, despite the fact that
most of the outward body parts seem very similar, many of the inward
body parts, like the speech center and brain, are very much different
and a transitional form would not be functional. The extremely differ-
ent speech center was why they had to teach Koko the gorilla sign
language rather than speaking.
Second, the whole concept of dis-functional intermediate-stage

33
body parts must be completely ignored between most species or else
the theory of evolution cannot be considered rational, even by athe-
ists. They must ignore the obvious impracticality of dis-functional
intermediate-stage body parts. And they must ignore the fact that
they have never found even one fossil of any creature with interme-
diate-stage body parts. There is no such thing!!
It must also be remembered that different species cannot inter-
breed. There are many internal inconsistencies in type that make it
impossible for different species to inter-breed and produce offspring
........ And if they can't inter-breed, how could they possibly slowly
change into a different specie that they couldn't even mate with? It is
not possible that any specie could slowly and gradually change into a
specie that they couldn't even mate with. The internal inconsistencies
that prohibit them from inter-mating could not possibly be at a half-way
point,..... and then suddenly switch to a different type. How absurd
can you get? (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.)
Variations within the same specie can inter-mate, like different
types of dogs, but not with a different specie. A dog cannot mate with
a cat. If the theory of evolution were true, this condition could not
exist. In addition, there would probably be a lot of species that could
even reproduce without mating at all. (mitosis)
Concerning dogs, there are many different kinds, but as with
every specie, there is a limit to how much they can change. This
limit is the very essence of what makes a specie to be a specie.
A dog will always be a dog. God not only created all the animals to be
in groups of species, but He also created limits for each specie to
which they must always stay within. You can breed big dogs and little
dogs, but you will never breed a dog the size of an elephant, nor the
size of an ant. Those sizes are outside of the limits for dogs. The
existence of these limits completely disproves the theory of evo-
lution. Species never change into other species.
The only possible exception to these limits would be some sort
of freak of nature, which is scientifically called a mutation. A muta-
tion is not a normal variation within the limits of the specie, like
breeding a cuter looking dog. Those mutations are always some-

34
thing bad, abnormal and inferior, never something better. (Like the
Elephant Man. See the real Elephant Man on Wikipedia.) A muta-
tion is never, never, never an improvement on the specie, and they
usually die young, as did the Elephant Man.
A mutation is caused by damage somehow being done to the
DNA code, usually from radiation or drugs during pregnancy, kind of
like a car getting into an accident. Is it possible to wreck a car in any
way and get an improvement? Is it possible to smash-up a cheap old
VW and end up with a new expensive Rolls? (No laughter, please,
folks, this is not a comedy.) There is no such thing as a car accident
causing an improvement on the car. (Be careful, they say they can get
beneficial mutations. But, that is because they have difficulty distin-
guishing between a natural variation within the limits of a specie and
a mutation. Mistaking a variation within the limits for a mutation is
why they claim to get occasional beneficial mutations.)
Furthermore, a car accident would not change the original car
design from the factory. (That is, the original DNA code of any specie.
Mutated formations never have offspring in accordance to any new
mutation. If they ever have offspring, any healthy offspring always has
the original DNA, including only natural variations within the limits of
the specie, never the mutated changes.) In the case of the Elephant
Man, his reproductive organ was in normal condition. So, if he had
any children, they would not look like little elephant men, but rather,
they would look like normal children.
Another example of damage to the DNA code would be a corrup-
tion error in a computer digital recording. Normally, when a digital
recording is made, the copy is identical to the original, just like how
when living cells form other cells (mitosis) the DNA code in the new
cell is an identical copy of the original. But, if the computer is malfunc-
tioning or the hard disc has a defect, it is possible that the copy could
be corrupted. If someone records their own music and wants to copy
it, is it possible that a corrupted copy of their music comes out as an
improvement? Could a corrupted copy ever produce better music
than the original? How absurd! Corrupted copies always sound bad.
Likewise, any damage to the DNA code will never, never, never

35
produce a better creature. The idea that genetic drift could alter a
specie so that it would eventually change into a different superior
specie is like saying that defects in audio recordings will eventually
change a piece of music into completely different superior piece of
music. A person who wants to write new music could just look for a
malfunctioning computer that records improperly, re-record a bunch of
music over and over again until finally they get superior music. (No
laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.) Digital recordings are
intended to be identical, just like DNA duplication in any creature from
one generation to another.
Nobody has ever bred an animal and got an improvement on the
specie outside the natural limits of that same specie. (Obviously, this
doesn't include changes within the limits of the specie, like breeding
a more attractive dog, which is still a dog and not anything but a dog.
Example: long hair Chihuahuas are much more adorable and cuter
than regular short hair Chihuahuas,..... but they're still dogs. Internet
search: long hair Chihuahua images)
The theory of evolution must reject the existence of limits to
how much species can change. They call this absence of limits ge-
netic drift, which is hokum. Those evolutionary scientists always
assume that since all species have children that are different than
their parents, there is no limit to how much they can change. If this
were true then no specie would even exist. All creatures would be
continually in some intermediate stage of changing into something
else, getting better and better as the years go by, with no creator or
breeder involved. This would also mean that there should be nothing
to inhibit different species from inter-mating or self-producing without
mating at all.
Before modern technology, horses were very important work ani-
mals, and the quality of their breeding was of utmost importance for
thousands of years. Everyone knows that if you want a better animal,
you won't get it without a breeder. Everyone knows it. (which means
natural selection is nonsense.) Species never, never, never get
better all by themselves without a breeder. (And inferior variations of
species normally have just as many offspring as supposedly superior

36
variations. A cheap farm horse has just as many offspring as an ex-
pensive thorough-bred race horse.) How absurd does the theory of
evolution have to be presented before people will reject it? Remem-
ber, this is a religious matter, not a scientific matter. The main goal of
the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God, which those
people will hold to no matter how much the scientific evidence is
against them.
And what about the old theory of the survival of the fittest or
natural selection, as some people call it? Do race horse owners get
their superior race horses using the survival of the fittest or do they
use a breeder? (No laughter, please, folks, this is not a comedy.) How
absurd does the theory of evolution have to be presented before uni-
versity professors will stop teaching it as though it were an undeniable
fact? All the universities that accept this type of irrational absurd ho-
kum do not deserve to be called universities; they have disqualified
themselves.

What about the evolution of a body part like the eye? Supposed-
ly, evolution is a process that happens very slowly and gradually over
many years. They say that the eye evolved slowly and gradually
over many years, improving all by itself little by little as time went by,
as a result of the survival of the fittest, with no breeder. But if that
were true then for a long time some poor creatures had a part-way de-
veloped eye that was nothing more than a useless and troublesome
lump on their faces, which would not make them the supposed fit-
test. (And how did it get on their faces anyway? And why a pair in
front? Why not one in the front and the other in the back? ... Or, as
some species have, one eye on each side of their heads, which gives
them a panoramic view; practically the same as having an eye in front
and an eye in back.) How could the survival of the fittest or natural
selection make it improve? It couldn't. Everything that improves
does so by some sort of intelligent design, not by random changes.
Random chances produce a mess, like a tornado going through a junk
yard, not improvement.
The existence of useless and troublesome lumps on the face

37
would not put that creature into the category of the fittest and some-
how make it have more offspring,..... and somehow the creatures with-
out those useless lumps have fewer offspring. Those useless and
troublesome lumps would be an unprofitable dis-functional hindrance,
not an asset. Creatures either have fully functioning eyes or they do
not, because God created them that way. No specie has ever started
a part-way developed eye that improved little by little, all by itself, by
chance, neither in the past nor in the present. Random chances don't
form improvement, they form disorder.

What's more, the human race itself does not go along with the
theory of the survival of the fittest. The most advanced people (fit-
test) are having the fewest children and the least advanced people are
having the most children. Professional women (fittest) are usually too
much caught up in the advancement of their careers (superiority) to be
bothered with what they consider to be the inferior lowly waste of time
of raising and training children at home. Even if they have children,
they usually end up paying someone else to take care of them and
raise them. If they do have children, they normally spend very little
time raising them. Most professional women would consider it an
insult if someone (a man) said they would be better off raising and
training children at home.
Despite their higher education, (from universities that don't de-
serve to be called universities) those women are not capable of un-
derstanding that the greatest contribution they could give to human-
ity is by doing a quality job of raising and training children at home.
(This comment is not intended to insult women. It is intended to take
note that women need loving husbands to guide them and protect
them from dangerous errors.)
Not only that but, the evolutionists who support the theory of the
survival of the fittest would not dare to stand up against the modern
feminist movement that teaches the fittest educated women to act
like men and not do the lowly task of raising and training children at
home. It doesn't matter that modern feminism contradicts their the-
ory of natural selection, they will stick to both and continue to con-

38
tradict themselves anyway. (feminism is anti-Christian in nature and
purpose. See article on: The Consequences of Women's Libera-
tion)
The world is being over-populated by the least fit people of
all..... And the theory of the survival of the fittest is absurd hokum.
In every specie, the least fit creatures do survive, and continue to
have just as many or more offspring as any other variation of their own
specie. Any particular specie or variation of a specie that has more
offspring is always due to their reproductive organs being somehow
more active, not due to any other superiority.
The theory of the survival of the fittest is kind of like the story
of two men in a forest who came across a bear. One of the men knelt
down to pray. The other man bent over and tightened his boot laces
getting ready to run. So, the first man said to him, Are you crazy, you
can't out-run a bear. To which he replied, I don't have to out-run the
bear, all I have to do is out-run you. (survival of the fittest) To which
he replied, Most bears normally only chase creatures that run away
from them. So, if you run and I don't, the bear will probably ignore me
and chase only you. However, if we both back away slowly, the bear
will probably not bother either of us, thank God. (both survived)
(Bears are also known to walk away if you make unpleasant sharp
clanging noises, like banging two rocks together, or two pieces of
metal together. It irritates their ears.) The theory of survival of the
fittest must assume that the un-fittest won't survive and won't have
children...... but in real life, the un-fittest do survive, and continue
having just as many or more children than anyone else.

The human over-population is also contaminating the world with

an abundance of pollution, using the technology created by the sup-
posed fittest most advanced people. (Contaminating our own world
is reverse evolution.) The human race has had the technology, for a
long time now, capable of discontinuing the polluting use of gasoline
and replacing it with much cleaner forms of energy, (which would real-
ly help reduce global warming, and also improve normal respiration for
all air-breathing creatures). (Internet search: replacement energy for

39
gasoline)
Electric cars are a poor choice, due to the inconvenient charac-
teristic of the required time delay for recharging the batteries. Also,
the distance limitations would make them impossible to use for any
long distance trips. And due to the severe limit to weight load capa-
city, those cars would go very slow if carrying over-weight people, or
extra cargo. Just one ordinary American chubster would make it run
like a turtle. (chubster, the kind that can barely fit through the door-
way of his own house. Sometimes they can't. And sometimes they
have to ride around in the back of a regular van or pick-up. Not only
that, but a chubster might break the springs on one of those light-
weight electric cars.)
Those light-weight electric vehicles aren't made for heavy loads.
However, the negative characteristic of time delay for recharging could
be overcome by having interchangeable batteries available all over
the place like how gas stations are available now. But, the supposed
fittest humans are the ones who insist on forcing everyone to use
gasoline anyway. (like the Bush family) Then they lie to everyone say-
ing that global warming will never cause any serious problems. (see
documentary called: An Inconvenient Truth)
On the subject of the implementation of new forms of energy,
there seems to be something very fishy about what's going on. (Even
in the documentary An Inconvenient Truth, this subject is avoided. Al
Gore spends all of his time pointing out the negative effects of global
warming without offering any real solutions. Contaminating emissions
need to be completely stopped, not reduced. Catalytic converters
reduced the automobile emissions for a while, but the problem still
continues. The use of gasoline needs to be replaced, not reduced.)
Normally, when any new type of business is started, investors
know that it is of utmost importance to be the first. When Bill Gates
started Microsoft, he started selling a product before he even had a
product. He had nothing! But he knew, very well, the importance of
being the first to get his foot in the door. (He didn't get his foot in the
door first on smart-phones, so Microsoft is way down in sales on
smart-phones. Linux-Android beat Microsoft to the punch on smart-

40
phones. If Gates had not got his foot in the door first on regular OS's,
Linux would have beaten him on that one, too.) But, somehow the
big, super rich petroleum owners are dragging their (supposedly
fittest) feet.
Why do they refuse to invest their money in the new technology
and get something better started? Maybe it's because they're too
much like the Bush family (who are leading investors in petroleum).
They enjoy causing big fat disasters like Bush's 9-11, knowing that
they're the ones who did it. (see documentary called: Loose Change
or Fahrenheit 9-11)
Disaster is coming, as a result of global warming (using gaso-
line), and those petroleum people can sit back and laugh because
nobody is lifting a finger to stop them. Decades ago was the time
when new cleaner energy sources should have replaced the use of
gasoline, but somehow this mysterious fishiness is causing investors
to avoid normal business practices and not invest in the lucrative and
environmentally safer venture of replacing the use of gasoline. Why
the fishiness? We should not still be using gasoline. This isn't
normal.

Another one is the big bang theory, which is nothing more than
a creation without a creator. This is an outright confession that the
evidence shows the existence of a creation, but they still deny that it
was done by a creator,..... they say a big explosion did it.
The whole universe is gradually running down and slowly corrup-
ting itself, like stars becoming black holes. Therefore, it must have
had a starting point in the past. This means that the universe could
not have existed eternally in the past.
Is there anything more ridiculous than the idea of a large explo-
sion causing organization and beauty? Is there anyone who would
organize their house by throwing a grenade into it? (No laughter,
please, folks, this is not a comedy.)
The only evidence that they have that a large explosion happen-
ed is that there must have been a starting point. Apart from the ob-

41
vious necessity of a starting point there is no other evidence of a giant
explosion ever happening; it is an assumed theory with no evi-
dence. They assumed there was a large explosion simply because
they reject the existence of the creator, God,..... and there is obviously
no other explanation for that starting point apart from their assumed
big bang. The existence of a starting point does not rule out that it
was caused by a creator. Anyhow, large explosions don't cause order,
they cause disorder, just like a tornado passing through a junk yard.
In addition, a large explosion would cause all of the matter involv-
ed to move away from the origin of that explosion at high speed with
nothing to stop that movement. In space there is no air to slow things
down. (Which is why the earth can rotate around the sun for thou-
sands of years at exactly the same speed with nothing to slow it down.
If it did slow down, even a little, the sun's gravity would pull it in. The
earth would have fallen into the sun many years ago.)
If there was a big bang, everything would continually be moving
away from the origin of the explosion in different directions, at high
speed. This would cause a continual change in the position of all the
stars, as seen from the earth. By now, all the stars would have gotten
so far away that they would no longer be visible from the earth. (Es-
pecially if the explosion happened billions of years ago, as they say it
did.)
However, all the stars in the universe have been in the same
position for a long time now. Thousands of years ago people saw the
constellations in the same formations that they are seen today. For
example: the pyramids in Egypt and Mexico (in Teotihuacan) were all
positioned according to the constellation Orion, which is seen today
exactly the same as when those pyramids were built. (In Teotihuacan
there are also other structures that mark exactly the position/distance
of all the planets in our own solar system.)
The first question is: how did the people in those days get such
perfect information as to the exact positioning of the stars and move-
ment/distances of the planets? It's one thing that primitive man could
recognize planets moving across the sky at night, it's quite different
that they knew the exact distances of those planets. And then the

42
second question is: how is it that those facts have not changed in
such a long time? None of the stars have changed their position.
The Hopi Indians in Arizona, USA, many years ago built villages,
with perfect measurements/distances, in accordance to the constella-
tion Orion. (Which has not changed since then.) (Orion, Orion, Orion,
Orion, Orion,..... why Orion?.. That's where the extra-terrestrial
space visitors came from, who taught them to build the pyramids. And,
who taught them astronomy more advanced than our modern techno-
logy is capable of.) (see my article listed below on: Angels are Aliens,
Aliens are Angels) Our solar system is not moving through the uni-
verse at high speed, nor is the universe expanding..... And obviously,
there was no big bang.

A university science professor teaching evolution as being fact

instead of theory is kind of like an American history professor teach-
ing his students that Richard Nixon (tricky Dicky) was the first presi-
dent of the United States; he can't do it without lying. Sooner or later
every evolutionary scientist is faced with the fact that the theory of
evolution is a lie,....... and they have to make a conscious choice to
accept and support that lie anyway. (They know perfectly well why
they throw so much rejected evidence into the trash.) Of course, it is
possible that they hate God so much that they really do believe their
own lies, which is a type of mental illness.
After all, if they deny the existence of God, then where did we
come from? They must have some kind of explanation that excludes
God. Therefore, they came up with their theory of evolution, which
sounds like it was invented by someone mentally unstable who dis-
honestly ignores and rejects the majority of the evidence which does
not support their theory.
(Notice: there are web pages about how science supports crea-
tion much more than evolution. Examples: The Institute for Creation
Research at: www.icr.org, or The Creation Research Society at:
www.creationresearch.org/) (these pages also have lists of recom-
mended books) (Also, see 2017 documentary called: Is Genesis

43
History?)

If anyone finds legitimate fault with anything presented in this

article,(please, inform me) just remember, nobody throws away an
apple because they don't like the core. People eat the apple and they
throw away only the core, not the entire apple. The majority of what is
presented here is good and true, and should not be thrown away.

comments for everyone to see:

https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pastordavidministries

or e-mails: pastordavidministries@openmailbox.org
PastorDavidMinistries@protonmail.com
PastorDavidMinistries@tutanota.com

OTHER ARTICLES
at: https://www.hashdoc.com
or: https://www.scribd.com look at bottom.
Sometimes hashdoc is slow, overloaded.
BEST: Google Drive https://goo.gl/992nQY

The Holy Scriptures

http://docdro.id/aoytoK1

The Lie of Evolution

http://docdro.id/8iHTZPE

What About Deborah

http://docdro.id/WZFTPRT

Fatherhood

44
 http://docdro.id/rRBGPzi

The Role Of Women Throughout History

http://docdro.id/y5N76mt

The Consequences of Using Incorrect Terminology

http://docdro.id/iSclIFT

Domestic Discipline
http://docdro.id/1p3ZWPv

The Lukewarm Church

http://docdro.id/8yBgpqf

Correct Divorce
http://docdro.id/ACf0bzC

Baptism
http://docdro.id/A5PGGa4

The Consequences of Women's Liberation

http://docdro.id/mvyN0Kw

The New World Order was Prophesied in the Bible

http://docdro.id/8PCQUwN

Self-Love and Self-Esteem

http://docdro.id/kOEGq3w

Angels are Aliens, Aliens are Angels

http://docdro.id/88ttGOQ

Wolves In Sheep's Clothing

http://docdro.id/aFuq27A

Slavery
http://docdro.id/ULokluY

45
 The Virtues of the Spirit
http://docdro.id/rAyRmTw

The Babylonian and Egyptian Captivity

http://docdro.id/iZXZXo0

The Suffering Of The Great Depression

http://docdro.id/sUSrdWV

Salvation
http://docdro.id/FwIc0hR

Marriage Misunderstandings Explained

http://docdro.id/jPdKvu5

also at:
https://www.scribd.com

https://www.scribd.com/document/356146389/The-Holy-Scriptures-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356144766/Correct-Divorce-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356144459/Angels-Are-Aliens-Aliens-Are-
Angels-August-2017

https://www.scribd.com/document/356146540/The-Lie-of-Evolution-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356146958/The-Suffering-of-the-Great-
Depression-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356144570/Baptism-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145036/Domestic-Discipline-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145143/Fatherhood-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145494/Marriage-Misunderstandings-
Explained-Aug-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145716/Salvation-Aug-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145838/Self-Love-and-Self-Esteem-Aug-
2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356145975/Slavery-Aug-2017

46
 https://www.scribd.com/document/356146031/The-Babylonian-and-Egyptian-
Captivity-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356146140/The-Consequences-of-Using-
Incorrect-Terminology-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356146266/The-Consequences-of-Women-s-
Liberation-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356143808/The-Lukewarm-Church-August-
2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356146746/The-New-World-Order-Was-
Prophesied-in-the-Bible-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356146846/the-role-of-women-throughout-
history-august-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356147021/The-Virtues-of-the-Spirit-August-
2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356147126/What-About-Deborah-August-2017
https://www.scribd.com/document/356147203/Wolves-in-Sheep-s-Clothing-
August-2017

47