Here's another example of 'lying for Jesus'

I need not waste your time to prove to you how people are lying to Save Darwin; and, that in fact, when Darwin himself admitted he could not prove evolution to be a scientific fact.

Anyway, here's another site where you'll discover people lying for Jesus; that, according to Pavao, of course, and not according to the Christian Bible!

You may visit the site below to see if any lying is here:

With love,
J. Martins

Comments for Here's another example of 'lying for Jesus'

Click here to add your own comments

Sep 22, 2013
Links and Response coming
by: Paul Pavao (Webmaster)

First, sorry I can only give you one link. The second link is to your book, title _Biblical Creation Truth_. I don't object to you listing a link to it except this site has already (apparently) been penalized by Google for links to weak sites. Your first link has a page rank of 3, pretty good for a personal site.

Anyway, yes, I can show you where problems lie on your site. I'd be interested to see your answer, but I'm afraid I have lunch and a gathering of the church to attend.

Your comment is up for anyone that wants to address it.

This site still gets a couple hundred visits a day despite the hit from Google over the last couple years that I had leukemia and haven't been working on it. Doing good now, and as soon as I'm done creating my Christian history course on Udemy, I'll be working on this site again.

Sep 23, 2013
by: Paul Pavao (Webmaster)

1. I wouldn't accuse you of lying. I limit that to scientists. I think you're woefully ignorant of both the evidence of evolution and the conclusions drawn from that evidence. I also think the arguments on your web site are extremely poor and based on the worst of data. Generally, though, I only accuse scientists who understand the scientific process of peer review of lying. If you repeated the slander about Donald Johanson and "Lucy" covered on this site, I would regard you as deceived. When a professional scientist repeats it, that's slander and lying because it's so easy to know better. A professional scientist is purposefully ignoring scientific ethics when he repeats such slander.

Now let me justify those statements.

2. Woefully ignorant

You wrote, "Darwin himself admitted he could not prove evolution to be a scientific fact."

Every scientist would be willing to say he could not "prove" evolution to be a "scientific fact." They would also say they could not prove the germ theory of disease to be a scientific fact.

Darwin was presenting a new theory when he wrote his book. He gave the evidence for his theory, and then he made predictions so that other scientists could either shore up his theory or find evidence that would falsify it.

That's how scientific discovery works, and our modern world proves just how well it works. Apparently, though, you don't even understand that most basic idea of science, yet you want to refute evolutionary theory on your web site!

3. The worst of data

You make this extraordinary claim that modern human remains have been found in 7 to 12 million year old sediment. You list three locations with finds dating from 1860, 1866, 1880, and 1912. The source for these supposed finds, all at least a century old, is a book called _Ape-Men, Fact or Fallacy_ produced by Sovereign Publications, clearly a creationist book.

The only way to verify such data, and I guarantee it would not be verifiable, would be to buy the book, look up his references, go find those references and look up their sources, etc. Someone once did that with Kent Hovind's claim that 70-foot tall plum trees grew in the Arctic. He had to go through four generations of sources to find the original, which was a perfectly normal 20-foot plum tree, found about 4 miles north of where it was expected to be found, on an island. The original source was simply using the tree to establish that the island was probably once connected to the coast, while Hovind had turned it into a pre-flood giant.

I don't know if I have room left in this comment to address the Cambrian explosion, but it's a perfect example of terrible reasoning, so I'll put that in the next comment.

Sep 23, 2013
Faulty Reasoning
by: Paul Pavao (Webmaster)

Faulty Reasoning:

On your web site, you write: "At a certain level (rocks corresponding to the “Pre Cambrian Era”) the geologic layers contain almost no fossils. The few that exist are those from cellular and multicellular creatures such as algae or bacteria. Suddenly, in the next higher layer (corresponding to the “Cambrian Period”) many sophisticated, fully formed fossils appear. These varied creatures include Trilobites, brachiopods, gastropods, bivalves, crinoids, graptolites, sponges, and segmented worms. This sudden appearance of so many fully developed life forms can not be explained using the theory of evolution and the slow-working microevolution model."

The Cambrian explosion was a surprise to scientists, though the time periods involved are in the neighborhood of 30 million years. It is amazing, and it is an event no one would have just guessed at.

However, the Cambrian explosion is no threat to evolution. Instead, it completely undermines the creation model.

Creationists love to argue that "every phyla was represented there, appearing suddenly." That's not true, though it is true most phyla were represented there.

Our phyla, Chordata, for example, was represented there. Of course, there was not one vertebrate yet: not one fish, not one amphibian, not one reptile, not one mammal. We were represented by underwater creatures that had a "chord" (thus, Chordata) that is the foundation of our backbone.

From the _Encyclopedia of Life_:

Another possible cephalochordate is Pikaia (Nelson, 1994) from the Middle Cambrian. These fossils are highly significant because they imply the contemporary existence of the tunicates and craniates in the Early Cambrian during the so-called Cambrian Explosion of animal life.

What's a tunicate? I can't post a photo in a comment, but just look it up on a search engine. It's a flower-looking creature that lives at the bottom of the see.

What's a craniate? The representatives from the mid-Cambrian period are cephalochordates. You can read about them at Basically, they are tiny worm/eels.

This doesn't fit the young earth model well at all. 500 million years is a long time ago, and it took 300 million years after that to evolve the first mammal. Mammals have amazing hearing because two of the reptiles' jawbones became the hammer and stirrup of our ear.

So, no, I wouldn't call you a liar. I don't believe you're lying. I think you're repeating arguments from people you trust to be honest with you. I wrote "Lying for Jesus" to warn you that they are not being honest with you. They are deceiving you on Jesus' behalf, thinking that they are doing you spiritual good by doing so.

They are the liars. You are just the victim of their lies.

Click here to add your own comments

Join in and write your own page! It's easy to do. How? Simply click here to return to lying-for-jesus.