The Lie of Evolution Pastor David Ministries Ezekiel 34:10, 23 www.pastordavidministries.com Revised January 2026 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:” The Genesis flood is of the utmost importance in the com- parison between evolution and creation. (Search for documentaries on YouTube called, “The Quest for Noah’s Ark” and “In Search of Noah’s Ark 1976”.) The archaeological evidence left on earth many years ago tells the only physical story we have of what happened. Since the difference between these two concepts is extremely different, incompatible and far from each other, the job of coming to an honest conclusion ought to be easy. The one should be close to the real archaeological evidence and the other should be far from the evidence. This article intends to show that the scanty evidence which supports evolution is almost entirely big fat lies, or on rare occasion, flimsy misapplied evidence. But, in most cases, deliberate lies..... they know they’re lying. What could possibly be more fun? However, most of the time they don’t show any evidence at all...... they don’t need to..... they just say it’s true, and most people believe them anyway, without evidence. What do they need any evidence for? They don’t. All the general public just follows along and believes them no matter what they say. The big question is: how do they do it with a straight face, without laughing? The general public is soooooo gullible. The word “evolution” has been greatly misused and incorrectly defined in modern times. Therefore, a clear definition must be given of this word. The main purpose of the modern use of this word was started over a century ago (by Dar- win'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. 1 The “theory” of evolution didn’t exist before that. The “theory” of evolu- tion is exclusively a modern phenomenon. Most people were much more reli- gious back in those days. The main purpose of the “theory” of evolution was to state very clearly that no creator was necessary for our existence. Its very es- sence is that of atheism. I repeat, when Darwin lived the predominant belief of the majority of people was that the creation account taught from the Bible was true. Creation used to be the commonly accepted belief of the origin of the world. Most people were much more religious in those days,...... and the theory of evolution was something new. Moreover, the word “evolution” has been greatly misused. For example, some people talk about the “evolution” of the computer. But, everybody knows that the computer had human creators and that its “creation” ( not “evolution”) has been a slow and gradual process by human creators all within the last century. The computer could never have “evolved” without creators; it was “created”, it didn't “evolve” all by itself. However, it is more likely that a computer could evolve all by itself than that human beings could evolve all by themselves; humans are much more complicated. The DNA code that forms human beings cannot be altered by mutations without causing abnormal inferiority. Mutations are never improvements. Anything that shows intelligent design cannot have any random deviations without ruining the original design. Everything that requires intelligent design must have a creator. Random chances never produce intelligent complicated design. Can a monkey typing random keys on a keyboard produce an intelligent book? Never, never, never. Evolution is a lie. Anything having intelligent design demonstrates the handiwork of a rational creator, guided by reason. 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 exis- tence of the things created, thereby inappropriately producing a reinforcement of the belief in the “theory” of evolution applied to the origin of life, without a creator. The subject of whether or not there was a creator has become irrelevant and/or meaningless, because of this misapplication of the word “evolution”. Whereas, the existence of a creator should be the central point. Using the word “evolution” inappropriately confuses people. (See article listed below on: The Consequences of Using Incorrect Terminology.) The “theory” of evolution supposedly happened by means of random chances, which in real life never produce organized intelligent design. It also “ ass u me s” that all species are always slowly changing into different species...... 2 which is false. (“ ass u me ” means to make an “ ass ” (donkey's rear end) of “yo u ” 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, (They are not identical twins of their parents.) but none of them are changing into a different specie; the variations always have limits. The “theory” of evolution must “ ass u me ” that there are no limits. No fossil of any intermediate form between any two species has ever been found..... never, zip, zero, nada. All of the links between all of the species are all missing. 00.00% exists. The “missing link” is not just the absence of an inter- mediate fossil form between ape and man. There is no link between ANY two species. ALL the links between ALL of the species are missing! It is true that the word “evolution” originally comes from old Latin and that before the modern “theory” of evolution ( started by Darwin), concerning the origin of life, it was used in a more general manner, very similar to the word “develop- ment”. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines evolution as: “ a process of change in a certain direction: UNFOLDING ” The commonly accepted modern definitions of “evolution” are only listed in the modern dictionaries, older dictionaries did not have any mention of species “evolving” into other species. But, the original meaning was not the same, many years ago, as com- pared to how they use it today. It is inappropriate to use the word “evolution” for anything going through a development (creation) process, the way they feel at liberty to do now, like talking about the “evolution” of the computer. The computer did not “evolve”, it was “created” by people. Any “process of change” directed by random chances does not ever produce anything with organized design, which requires rational mental capacity. 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 conno- tation 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 automatically attached to the word “evolution”, even when it is used in reference to other things, which are not pertaining to the origin of life on earth . (Like the supposed “evolution” of the computer. The computer did not “evolve”, it was creat- ed.) Amazingly, when a bunch of expert evolutionists and creationists get to- gether to have a debate, (there are many videos of these debates on YouTube) it 3 is the evolutionists who always bring up religion first. The creationists are ready to talk about science, but the evolutionists want to talk about God. The main com- plaint they have is that they expect that if God really does exist, then why is there so much badness in the world? ( Gen 3:17-19 ) If indeed God is a God of love, then why aren’t we living in paradise? Well, the human race started out in a para- dise. It was called the “Garden of Eden”. God gave them only one rule to live by: they were forbidden from eating the fruit from one certain tree. ( Gen 3 ) If they had not disobeyed God by eating from that tree, we would all still be living in that para- dise right now...... with no sickness, no aging and no death. And rest assured, if those people complaining that we’re not living in paradise were living in the “Garden of Eden”, they would have eaten from the forbidden tree just like Adam and Eve did. Yet, God has made a plan that per- mits people to eventually get to paradise, in the next life. Why aren’t the people who complain that we’re not living in paradise right now not interested in the opportunity of salvation, and paradise in the next life? (See article listed below on: Salvation.) We must also confront those people who consider the whole concept of creation, about 6,000 years ago, to be absurd stupidity. Well, the only other option is to believe that living organisms came from non-living materials, changing over time, caused by random chances. Which is to say, in so many words, that we came from a rock. Living organisms never come from non-living materials. The obvious absurdity of their rock theory is the only reason for their need for lots and lots and lots of “time”. So, they twist the evidence and claim the earth to be billions of years old. They need lots and lots of “time” in order to cover-up the unmistakable impossibility of their theory that living creatures came from rocks. Now,..... Can we get back to talking about science instead of religion? The Bible teaches that, approximately six thousand years ago (more or less) God created the world in six days. (Literal days consisting of 24 hours. They were not six extended periods of time, as some people propose. Gen. 1:5 “And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.” ) (Evolution and creation are contrary to each other, and no attempt should be made to combine them or to blend them to- gether. Evolution is a lie! Christians must not make accommodations for that lie. 4 Christians must see it for what it truly is...... a lie. Not even a mistake. It is a deli- berate lie!) 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 ages of the earth being six thou- sand 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 dif- ference.) The important questions are: First , where do evolutionary scientists get their number of years from? (The average person doesn’t know. But, they follow along anyway.) Second , why do they feel free to change that number whenever they get in the mood, and then teach it as though it's an undeniable fact? The number of years they give is always changing....... and yet they teach it as though it's an undeniable fact. And, anyone who contradicts them is stupid. Answer – They make-up that number of years however they want, with feeble twisted evi- dence or no evidence at all, because the general public will believe them, no matter what they say. They don’t need any proof. And third , why do they even need billions of years, anyway? Answer - Since nobody ever actually sees evolution happening in real life, the evolutionists conclude that it happens so slowly that it is impossible to actually see it in pro- gress. (No, if it was happening in real life we would see half-way intermediate forms of species, right now.) Therefore, before they begin looking for evidence, they have to ass u me that there must have been billions of years in the process. So, they end up twisting the evidence to make it fit their previously ass u me d con- clusions. But in reality, the real reason why nobody ever sees evolution happen- ing is because it never happens. No specie ever changes into a different specie. No fossil of an intermediate specie between any two different species has ever been found. Not even one. In fact, if evolution were true, no “specie” would exist at all. Every creature would be in the process of changing into something else. There would be no such thing as any creature remaining as a consistent, enduring “specie”. And, they have to ignore the fact that ALL intermediate forms would be impractical, inferior and dysfunctional. They insist that intermediate forms would be superior advancements. But, NO. In the real world, intermediate forms would produce a creature which would be crippled and disabled. 5 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 neces- sary to “assume” something, whereas in those other cases “assuming” is incor- rect, wrong and irrational. It is important to remember that this type of “assumed” evidence must be considered only “probable” evidence, not absolute proof.) In the Bible, people have existed since the Garden of Eden , which is a close approximation of the age of the earth. But in evolutionary science, the Garden of Eden is not considered acceptable. They consider it to be a myth or fairy-tale. In the Bible, the time from Adam to Christ is about 4,100 years. And from Adam to our modern age, is about 6,123 years. The Jewish calendar claims the year to be 5,783 since creation. Continuing the discussion of using a scientific method for measuring the age of the earth: ....... One approach involves measuring quantities of specific substances that result from constant natural processes. For example, a very steady process is the accumulation of cosmic dust on the surface of the earth, the moon, and Mars. Evolutionary scientists once measured the speed of this pro- cess and the total amount of cosmic dust present—and the results yielded an age close to the biblical figure: around 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 multi-story building. Not only that, but those little lunar rovers with wheels could not work riding on top of billions of years of soft cosmic dust, any more than regular cars can drive on top of deep snow. (That’s why they sell 4 wheel drives, so that people can get through deep snow in the winter time. In fact, they would need something more like a snowmobile to ride over all that cosmic dust.) This dating method of the age of the earth, moon and Mars was then rejected by the evolutionary scien- tist’s because it did not give them the results that they wanted, regardless of the obvious soundness of this method. The composition of cosmic dust is easy to identify and does not decom- pose like some other materials. On earth, much of it that fell on land would have been washed into the oceans by rain. So, the oceans should contain everything that fell directly into them plus a large amount that was washed off the land. Yet, 6 scientists cannot find billions of years’ worth of cosmic dust—not on the land, not in the oceans, not anywhere. If evolution is true and the earth is billions of years old, then where is all that dust? How could it just disappear from the surfaces of the earth, the moon, and Mars? ..... It’s not possible. 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. The layers of sediment were formed by the Genesis flood, not from cosmic dust. Mostly, the layers of sediment were formed at the end of the flood as the water was draining off the continents into the oceans. And, as that was happening, the oceans were sinking lower and the mountains were rising higher. In fact, before the flood, there is no reason to believe that there were any tall mountains at all. There have been also MANY , MANY other good and sound dating methods which were also originally proposed and tested by evolutionary scien- tists (their own people), but those were also rejected and denied because those methods did not give them the results they wanted. Pretty soon those evolution- ary scientists had trash cans that were overflowing with rejected dating methods. Eventually, they needed big dumpsters to handle all the abundance of evidence they were throwing out. The truth is, there is an abundance of sound evidence that the earth is very young, much more evidence than the evidence that the earth is old. (like comparing an ant to an elephant) Also, this demonstrates how the evolutionary scientists start with their ass u me d theory and then dishonestly try to twist the evidence to make it fit their previously invented conclusions........ and how they reject the majority of the evidence that doesn't agree with it. (Notice – their conclusions are always formed before the evidence is examined. Christians also form their conclusions before examining the scientific evidence, but that is because Christians 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?) In reality, there are only a few dating methods used by evolutionary scientists that appear to support an old earth. And the only reason those methods were accepted is because they produce the oldest possible ages —not because they are better methods. In fact, there have also been other methods that produc- ed medium-range dates that were also rejected—again, because they didn’t support the billions-of-years narrative necessary for evolution. However, the vast majority of the best evidence still shows the earth to be very young; the biblical age. In addition, those few methods that give the old- est age are noticeably less stable because they are based on a process that pro- 7 bably has changed over the years due to things like the Genesis flood. (Which the evolutionists also reject.) (Search on YouTube for documentaries called, “The Quest for Noah’s Ark” and “In Search of Noah’s Ark 1976”.) It is also very probable that before the flood, the tallest mountains were much lower than the mountains are now. And, as the mass of water drained off the land, after the flood, quite probably the ocean floors sank lower, which caused taller mountains to be pushed up higher than before the flood. (Remember, the inner part of the earth is liquid lava.) As a result, much less water would have been necessary to cover all of the land, during the flood. In fact, there is no reason to believe that any tall mountains existed before the flood. Even now, they’ve been talking for years about how they’re expecting global warming to cause the water level in the oceans to get higher and higher. But, what’s happening, while a lot of ice is melting and filling the oceans with more and more water, the ocean floors are sinking and the land is getting pushed up higher and higher. So, we should not expect to see the water level in the oceans get much higher. Yes, the water level may rise a little , but not a lot And, why do they even need billions of years, anyway? Answer : Since nobody ever actually sees evolution happening in real life, they have to conclude that it happens so slowly that it is impossible to actually see it in progress. There- fore, before they begin looking for evidence, they have to ass u me that there must have been billions of years in the process. So, they end up twisting the evidence to make it fit their previously ass u me d conclusions. But in reality, the real reason why nobody ever sees evolution happening is because it never happens...... and, therefore, a super old earth is not neces- sary. If evolution were true regular “species” would not even exist, every creature would be in some sort of intermediate form. ALL animals would be changing into something else. The truth is, ALL species stay within the limits of their own specie. All over the world every animal, including humans, fit into their own specie. Species changing into other species never happens. If evolution were true, then no “specie” would exist. The flood would have caused changes in the earth's atmosphere and crust, which in turn would have caused changes in the aging process of almost everything, including humans. The Bible says that people lived much longer before the flood. Noah lived to 950 years of age. Gen. 9:29 (also read: Gen. 5 for additional lifespans.) (Notice – the 2014 film “Noah” is loaded with errors. Holly- wood producers are not in the business of historical accuracy—they’re in the busi- ness of selling movies. So when they use a true story, they often fictionalize it to 8 make it more marketable.) (Noah's ark has been seen by witnesses on the top of mount Ararat, in Turkey, usually buried in snow.) (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_for_Noah%27s_Ark and search for documentaries on YouTube called, “The Quest for Noah’s Ark” and “In Search of Noah’s Ark 1976”.) Noah’s ark is box-shaped, not boat-shaped, as clearly stated in the Bible. It did not need to travel, just float. Mount Ararat is not the tallest mountain, but it is very difficult to climb. So, it's impossible that such a massive structure was built on top of it. More likely, the Ark landed there after the waters receded. (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 had no rudder, no motor, no sail and no oars. It was also the right size for the job. That box shaped construction on the top of that mountain is the same size and shape as Noah's ark clearly stated in the Bible.) Gen 6:15 “....... The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits.” (See documentaries on YouTube called, “The Quest for Noah’s Ark” and “In Search of Noah’s Ark 1976”.) Please notice, there are also reports that ancient remains of a different boat shaped structure has been found up there in a valley, next to the mountain, close to where the real ark was found, which is the same size, but a different shape. A very simple explanation for that is that it’s a replica similar to the “Noah’s Ark” like the one built in Williamstown, Kentucky, USA. They call it “ Ark Encounter”, which they made very close to the “Creation museum” in Petersburg, Kentucky, USA. And.... just like the replica made in Kentucky, the other replica in the valley, near the real ark, had the right size, but wrong shape. How could those builders of that replica not be aware of the abundance of reports made about the box shape of the real “Noah’s Ark”? (Smells fishy to me.) (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 ) (See documentaries on YouTube called, “The Quest for Noah’s Ark” and “In Search of Noah’s Ark 1976”.) Fossils themselves cannot be formed unless they are buried quickly and completely, as in a flood. After the heavy rain for 40 days and 40 nights ( Gen. 7:12 ), eventually, all that water drained off the land into the oceans. More than likely, the land was much flatter before the flood, but after all 9 that water drained into the oceans, the ocean floors sank, which caused the mountains to be pushed up much higher than before the flood. Remember, under the earth’s crust is liquid lava. The earth is kind of like a giant balloon filled with liquid. And, if something pushes down on one part of the balloon, the other parts of the balloon rise up higher. Also, understand that as the water was draining off the land, it caused sediment to flow and cover many plants and animals, burying them quickly and entirely which was how the fossils were formed. This was also how underground deposits of petroleum were formed. Without a flood, underground petroleum could not exist. Apart from the flood there is no feasible manner which could have formed those deposits of petroleum or coal. It is impossible for evolutionists to explain these things. Please notice, that ALL of the levels of sediment were formed at the same time, in the same flood. So, ALL of the levels of sediment are the same age. This is why the evolutionary scientists never date the levels of sediment. NONE of their dating methods can possibly give them different ages for any of the levels of sediment. So, they already know not to attempt dating sediment. So, evolutionists have to use a very unusual method for dating old fossils and sediment, which isn’t really dating at all. They use what they call “index fossils”, which are small commonly found fossils available all over the place. According to evolutionists those “index fossils” are like markers that indicate at what age a particular fossil or sediment is. But, according to creation, all fossils would be expected to be found scattered pretty much evenly all over the place. Of course, those evolutionists can very easily select any “index fossil” they want to say any age they want. They can just make it up as they go along. And who’s going to contradict them? Almost everybody believes them no matter what they say. 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 con- ditions 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. (Notice - regarding the mass extinction of the majority of species that can be found in the fossil record. The Bible does not say that Noah got every last specie into the ark. It says that his instructions were to: Gen 6:19 “And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.” His instructions were to gather two of “every” sort (specie). But, it never says that he actually got every last spe- cie. Obviously, it didn’t really matter if he got every last one.) (It’s also possible 10 that most of the dinosaurs were deliberately left out.) So obviously, if Noah failed to get any particular specie, it would have become extinct after the flood. What's more, even with their supposed billions of years, canyons like the Grand Cannon could never have been formed by that teeny tiny river that flows at its base. The Grand Cannon must have been formed by a giant flood. In the oceans, hundreds of underwater cities have been found which obviously were at some time in the past above the water line of the ocean. There are more than 200 known underwater cities in the Mediterranean alone. Many of those underwater structures are explained very extensively in the History 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 was, being overflowed with water, perished:” The Genesis flood is of the utmost importance in the comparison be- tween evolution and creation. (See documentaries on YouTube called, “The Quest for Noah’s Ark” and “In Search of Noah’s Ark 1976”.) The most widely used scientific method to determine the age of younger fossils (not rocks) used by evolutionists is by a process known as carbon dating, a technique that measures the rate of decay and radioactivity in an organic object. Carbon-14 is not a stable isotope, so it decays over time, whereas carbon-12 does not decay, so by measuring the two against each other, they're able to get a general age. In order to do carbon dating, you need organic material. You need wood or bone..... something that lived. A piece of stone can't be carbon dated. (Please notice that this method is not as accurate as they claim it is. It’s good for general ages, but not for precise ages. The results might be double the true age or half of the true age, but not a million times the true age.) The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,700 years, making it reliable for dating organic matter up to about 50,000 years old. After that, the quantity of carbon-14 is so small that it is no longer measurable. Therefore, it cannot be used to mea- sure anything that is supposed to be more than 50,000 years old. The problem is that, according to creation, the flood happened about 4,000 years ago. So, ALL of the fossils should be 4,000 years old. But, because the evolutionists ass u me that those fossils are much older, they ass u me that carbon dating cannot be used on those fossils. They never use the carbon-14 dating method on them. The truth is 11 that carbon-14 DOES work on those fossils, but since they don’t want a young age, they already know that they have to avoid using carbon-14. So, they lie, and use a different method to get the age they want. Carbon-14 dating never gives any age of any fossil to be millions of years old. This means that no fossil really is that old. And the fossils that they claim are millions of years old, they must be very careful to never use carbon-dating on them. So, if they want a super old age for any fossil, they have to use some other method, like “index fossils”, which they can make any claims they want, and everybody just takes their word for it. Is there anyone who ever goes to double check? No. Never. We need someone to carbon-date those index fossils. Rest assured they’re not as old as the evolutionists claim they are. Remember, carbon-14 dating 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. (This 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 (carbon-14 dating), just for certain cases, without letting anyone know that their own methodology disproves their own theory...... and then they find a different way to get the results they want.) In other words, when they carbon date a dinosaur bone they get a very young Bible age, which they don’t want. So, they inappropriately conclude that carbon-14 dating doesn’t work on dinosaur bones (without giving any under- standable explanation), and therefore they have to use a different method. (But, the truth is, carbon-14 dating does work on dinosaur bones. The young Bible age results they get are indeed true.) They say they have to date a dinosaur bone according to the age of the deposits in which it is found. (Are they talking about the level of sediment? No. Try asking them.) In other words, they select an object next to where the bone was found and use that (which they call “index fossils”), 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? And, why can’t they date the level of sediment?) Some- thing smells fishy. Yeah, it’s fishy all right. Supposedly, there are lots of little “index fossils” near the bone that they’re trying to date. And, what if each one they have listed for a different age? Well then, they can just pick whichever one they want, and give it whichever age they want to give it. In fact, the guy who goes out to examine any fossil could just take along with him a pocket full of those small “index fossils”, and then he could just pick whichever one he wanted, out of his own pants pocket, to say the fossil was any age he wanted. They don’t ever have anyone peeking over their shoulder to check if they’re doing it right. After all, is it believable that every single dinosaur bone they evaluate has an “index fossil” right next to it? And if not, is it believable 12 that, in the event that there wasn’t an “index fossil” next to it, would they excavate a large area all around their find just looking for one of those little “index fossils”? They would need a lot of heavy duty land digging equipment to do that! Phooey! It’s a whole lot easier for the paleontologist to just carry a variety of those little “index fossils” along in his pocket. There..... problem solved. After all, no- body ever contradicts them anyway. They can do anything they want and claim it’s true. (I’m not saying all this because I’ve actually seen them carrying “index fossils” in their pockets. I haven’t. I’m saying it because this is the type of dis- honest thing they would do. After all, the “index fossils” themselves are evaluated to be any age they want. Have they ever dated any of those index fossils? NO! They don’t have to. Everyone believes them anyway.) (Remember, they say that carbon dating can’t work for anything over 50,000 years.) Well...... if you ask them about their dating method, they will probably say something like: The levels of sediment are dated by the “index fossils” found in it. And..... the “index fossils” are dated by the level of sediment which they are found in. .......That’s circular reasoning. (But you're not supposed to notice that. This is how they date the levels of sediment without actually dating the levels of sediment. But you're not supposed to notice that, either. And..... as long as no- body goes to check it out for themselves, which they never do, they can keep on saying any age they want.) 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 “index fossils” of the ass- u me d age they whimsically decided to give it. Then, they could pick out whatever “index fossil” they want out of their pants pocket, and claim they found it nearby. In other words, the object has the age they ass u me d because they ass u me d the age it has. They present evidence as fact, which is nothing more than their own whim- sical invention rather than scientific evidence.) Remember, evolution is in the lie business, not in the truth business...... And, they love it that way. What could possibly be more fun? They already know that the general public never investi- gates to see if what they say is true. And, what are “index fossils”? ...... Since ALL of the levels of sediment were formed at the same time, in the same flood, evolution cannot date the levels of sediment in any normal manner. So, they teach that each level of sediment represents a certain age many years ago when certain animals lived leaving only the fossils of that age behind. There have always been certain types of small creatures in abundance in each age (according to them), so if you know what types of “index fossils” are present in any particular section of sediment, then you can know what age the sediment is by finding those common small fossils in it. All of this is not a dating process at all. It is a false assumption by which they can 13 select any age they want for anything they want. Lies, lies, lies, lies. After all, if creation is true, then all of the “index fossils” are scatered in all of the levels of sediment, and those evolutionists can just pick whichever ones they want in any level, and make whatever claims they want about anything. The “index fossils” method permits them to claim anything they want. The “index fos- sil” methodology is not scientific evidence at all. The truth is that if they were to use carbon dating on all those “index fossils” the results would be very much different than the ages they claim them to be. If creation is true then they would get ages very close to the time of the flood, about ~4,000 years ago. Remember, the reason why they need billions of years is because nobody ever sees evolution in progress. Nobody ever sees any crea- ture changing into a different specie. Intermediate forms of animals don’t exist. It never happens. So, they claim that it happens so super slowly that it’s impossible to actually see it in progress. But, the truth is that nobody ever sees it happening because it never happens. And the earth is not billions of years old. And, what if ALL of those “index fossils” are scattered in an abundance ALL through every one of the levels of sediment? This is what you would expect to see if the Genesis flood is true..... if the Bible is true. Well, folks..... is there anyone who will take a look for us? This whole “index fossil” system is calling God a liar, saying that the Bible’s account that God created the world approximately 6,000 years ago is false. We need somebody to make a real good video docu- mentary to prove where the “index fossils” are really found. And, we need to see the results of carbon dating on those “index fossils”. So ....... who is the real liar? God or the evolutionists? I’m an old man, and I don’t have the means or the equipment necessary to do this kind of search. Isn’t there anybody who can? And...... rest assured, a carbon-14 dating test of those “index fossils” will give the Bible age, which means that ALL of those “index fossils” they claim to be millions of years old are really closer to the Bible age. If the Bible is true, then ALL of the levels of sediment were formed as the flood water was draining off the land and into the oceans, displacing a lot of sedi- ment along the way. All of the underground fossils found in sediment were buried quickly and entirely at the same time in that flood. And ALL of the “index fossils” are scattered at random in ALL the levels of sediment. We should expect to see that their entire system of “index fossils” is a false claim. After all, they can’t get their age of millions of years any other way. Why not? We should expect them to use a system, like the “index fossils”, which is so exceedingly obviously falsifiable. But, the mere fact that they cannot date the levels of sediment in any nor- mal manner is proof that ALL of the levels of sediment are the same age, formed in the same flood, as the flood waters receded off the land, which buried many plants and animals, as the sediment was moving toward the oceans, after the rain 14 stopped. This was how all of the fossils were formed, and how all of the deposits of petroleum and coal were formed. The evolutionists have no understandable explanation for the formation of underground deposits of petroleum or coal. Plants and animals which die out on open land could never form underground deposits of petroleum or coal. A deposit of coal was from a mass of trees all pushed together in a big pile and covered with sediment. That can’t happen in any typical manner as tre