The lie of evolution!

If this were not a lie, then why are there so many cover ups of the truth in science, and why are so many blacklisted in science if they believe the earth is young, or that God created it. Why? Because if there is proof of a recent creation, then the bible may be true. And if it is true, then Christ must be the way, the truth and the life as He promises He is. And if Christ is who He said He is, the only way to the Father,then He must be followed, and heaven and hell become very real places. The concept that we are just animals, only slightly removed from apes, means that there are no moral standards, no laws worth obeying, no future, and no hope. The realization of this terrible truth even penetrated the gloom of *Darwin’s mind at times. "With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the minds of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?"—*Charles Darwin, quoted in Francis Darwin (ed.), Life and Letters of Charles Darwin (1903; 1971 reprint), Vol. 1, p. 285. "We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time that we cry: ‘The emperor has no clothes!’ "—*Kenneth Hsu, "Darwin’s Three Mistakes," in Geology 14 (1986), p. 534. "If we insist on maintaining and supporting the theory of evolution, we are then forced to eliminate and disavow mathematical probability concepts. If we are convinced that mathematics is correct, then we have to discard the present concepts of evolution. The two teachings do not seem to be compatible with each other. "As objective scientists, which shall we support? "Remember the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes? Not a single vassal dared point out the obvious fact that the emperor was naked; instead they competed with each other to vociferously praise the wonderful tailoring of the new suit. They even described in detail the fine and exquisite stitching to be found in the lower left corner of the imaginary coat. They were all gratified—to their own satisfaction—to hear themselves describe the virtue and beauty of the coat. "It was left to the simplistic mind of a naive child to exclaim: ‘but this is not so—the Emperor is naked!’ " "Does this sound familiar? History has a way of repeating itself."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong—A Study in Probabilities (1984), pp. 217-218. "It is indeed, a very curious state of affairs, I think, that paleontologists have been insisting that their record is consistent with slow, steady, gradual evolution where I think that privately, they’ve known for over a hundred years that such is not the case. I view stasis and the trumpeting of stasis to the whole world that the fossil record shows slow, steady, continuous change (as opposed to jerky patterns of change) as akin to the ‘Emperor’s new clothes.’ Paleontologists have known this for over a hundred years."—*Norman Eldredge, "Did Darwin Get it Wrong?" November 1, 1981, p. 6 [head paleontologist, American Museum of Natural History, New York City]. We in the 20th century bow low before the theories of "science," little realizing that a small group maintains a strict control over what will be researched and concluded while the majority of scientists stand silently aside, fearful to speak lest they lose their jobs.(Expelled the movie shows some of this) Most of this info can be found at www.Evolution-facts.com Thank you so much for the incalauble research, and for allowing us to use your information! A post from www.ICR.org (Institute for Creation Research) How to Know the Truth “If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.” (John 7:17) The apostle Paul, in his last epistle, wrote about certain philosophers who would be “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). In the next verse, Paul makes it clear why such people, no matter how scholarly or well educated they seem to be, are still incapable of accepting real truth. “So do these also resist the truth,” he says (v. 8). They could not learn the truth because they were not willing to believe or obey the truth when they learned it. For example, a very vexing controversy among modern Christians is whether or not the Genesis account of six-day creation can be so interpreted as to accommodate the billion-year, geological-age system of Earth history. Perhaps the difficulty, in this as well as in other such doctrinal controversies, is a basic unwillingness to believe doctrines plainly revealed in God’s Word when they conflict with doctrines based solely on human reasoning. When the Lord Jesus spoke the words of our text, He was speaking to arrogant religionists who regarded Him as nothing but an itinerant preacher, rejecting His teachings, even though they knew these teachings were fully biblical. His rebuke of these hypocrites is truly a timeless criterion for recognizing God’s truth and knowing His will. Such a heart does not try to twist God’s Word to accommodate a human philosophy, nor does it try to accommodate one’s personal will by persuading himself that it is God’s will. God’s will is always consistent with God’s Word, which is written to be easily understood by anyone who is willing to believe His Word and do His will. HMM Let's start from the myth, the beginning of the theory, which is a lie, and false science: 1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe: Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order. 2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life: Dirt + water + time = living creatures. 7 scientists living at the time of Darwin refuted his theory completely, and even evolutionists could not debate them. Many more since then have completely proven that this is not science. Carl Linn (Carolus Linnaeus, 1707-1778) was a scientist who classified immense numbers of living organisms. An earnest Creationist, he clearly saw that there were no halfway species. All plant and animal species were definite categories, separate from one another. Variation was possible within a species, and there were many sub-species. But there were no cross-overs from one species to another First Law of Thermodynamics (1847). Heinrich von Helmholtz stated the law of conservation of energy: The sum total of all matter will always remain the same. This law refutes several aspects of evolutionary theory. Second Law of Thermodynamics (1850). R. J. E. Clausius stated the law of entropy: All systems will tend toward the most mathematically probable state, and eventually become totally random and disorganized (*Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 1968, p. 201). In other words, everything runs down, wears out, and goes to pieces (*R.R. Kindsay, "Physics: to What Extent is it Deterministic," American Scientist 56, 1968, p. 100). This law totally eliminates the basic evolutionary theory that simple evolves into complex. *Einstein said the two laws were the most enduring laws he knew of Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) was a Creationist who lived and worked near Brunn (now Brno), Czechoslovakia. He was a science and math teacher. Unlike the theorists, Mendel was a true scientist. He bred garden peas and studied the results of crossing various varieties. Beginning his work in 1856, he concluded it within eight years. In 1865, he reported his research in the Journal of the Brunn Society for the Study of Natural Science. The journal was distributed to 120 libraries in Europe, England, and America. Yet his research was totally ignored by the scientific community until it was rediscovered in 1900 (*R.A. Fisher, "Has Mendel’s Work Been Rediscovered?" Annals of Science, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1936). His experiments clearly showed that one species could not transmute into another one. A genetic barrier existed that could not be bridged. Mendel’s work laid the basis for modern genetics; and his discoveries effectively destroyed the basis for species evolution (*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, 1984, pp. 63-64). Louis Pasteur (1822-1895) was another genuine scientist. In the process of studying fermentation, he performed his famous 1861 experiment, in which he disproved the theory of spontaneous generation. Life cannot arise from non-living materials. This experiment was very important; for, up to that time, a majority of scientists believed in spontaneous generation. (They thought that if a pile of old clothes were left in a corner, it would breed mice! The proof was that, upon later returning to the clothes, mice would frequently be found there.) Pasteur concluded from his experiment that only God could create living creatures. But modern evolutionary theory continues to be based on that out-dated theory disproved by Pasteur: spontaneous generation (life arises from non-life). Why? Because it is the only basis on which evolution could occur. As *Adams notes, "With spontaneous generation discredited [by Pasteur], biologists were left with no theory of the origin of life at all" (*J. Edison Adams, Plants: An Introduction to Modern Biology, 1967, p. 585). August Friedrich Leopold Weismann (1834-1914) was a German biologist who disproved *Lamarck’s notion of "the inheritance of acquired characteristics." He is primarily remembered as the scientist who cut off the tails of 901 young white mice in 19 successive generations, yet each new generation was born with a full-length tail. The final generation, he reported, had tails as long as those originally measured on the first. Weismann also carried out other experiments that buttressed his refutation of Lamarckism. His discoveries, along with the fact that circumcision of Jewish males for 4,000 years had not affected the foreskin, doomed the theory (*Jean Rostand, Orion Book of Evolution, 1960, p. 64). Yet Lamarckism continues today as the disguised basis of evolutionary biology. For example, evolutionists still teach that giraffes kept stretching their necks to reach higher branches, so their necks became longer! In a later book, *Darwin abandoned natural selection as unworkable, and returned to Lamarckism as the cause of the never-observed change from one species to another (*Randall Hedtke, The Secret of the Sixth Edition, 1984). In 1900, three scientists independently discovered Gregor Mendel’s astounding research findings about heredity. In the years since then, genetic research has repeatedly confirmed that there are only changes within species—never cross-species changes (which would be true evolution). This is true of plants, animals, and even microbes. Did you know that Darwin rejected Natural Selection in later years? In a later book (Descent of Man, 1871), Darwin abandoned "natural selection" as hopeless, and returned to Lamarckism (the scientifically discredited inheritance of acquired characteristics; if you build strong muscles, your son will inherit them). How do they come up with dating ages? Not very well: Radiocarbon dating (1946). *Willard Libby and his associates discovered carbon 14 (C 14) as a method for the dating of earlier organic materials. But later research revealed that its inaccuracy increases in accordance with the actual age of the material (*C.A. Reed, "Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East," in Science, 130, 1959, p. 1630; University of California at Los Angeles, "On the Accuracy of Radiocarbon Dates," in Geochronicle, 2, 1966 [Libby’s own laboratory]) Evolution does not work, it was simply invented to take our eyes of of Creator God. It's a lie, with no scientific proof whatsoever. George Gamow and two associates dreamed up the astonishing concept that an explosion of nothing produced hydrogen and helium, which then shot outward, then turned and began circling and pushing itself into our present highly organized stars and galactic systems. This far-fetched theory has repeatedly been opposed by a number of scientists (*G. Burbidge, "Was There Really a Big Bang?" in Nature 233, 1971, pp. 36, 39). By the 1980s, astronomers which continued to oppose the theory began to be relieved of their research time at major observatories ("Companion Galaxies Match Quasar Redshifts: The Debate Goes On," Physics Today, 37:17, December 1984). In spite of clear evidence that the theory is unscientific and unworkable, evolutionists refuse to abandon it. Amino Acid Synthesis (1953). When *Stanley Miller produced a few amino acids from chemicals, amid a continuous small sparking apparatus, newspaper headlines proclaimed: "Life has been created!" But evolutionists hid the truth: The experiment had disproved the possibility that evolution could occur. The amino acids were totally dead, and the experiment only proved that a synthetic production of them would result in equal amounts of left- and right-handed amino acids. Since only left-handed ones exist in animals, accidental production could never produce a living creature (*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution, 1990, p. 274). 2 minutes ago Discovery of DNA (1953). *Rosiland Franklin took some special photographs which were used in 1953 by *Francis Crick and *James Watson (without giving her credit), to develop the astounding helix model of the DNA molecule. DNA has crushed the hopes of biological evolutionists; for it provides clear evidence that every species is locked into its own coding pattern. It would be impossible for one species to change into another, since the genes network together so closely. It is a combination lock, and it is shut tight. Only sub-species variations can occur (varieties in plants, and breeds in animals). This is done through gene shuffling (*A.I. Oparin, Life: Its Nature, Origin and Development, 1961, p. 31; *Hubert P. Yockey, "A Calculation of Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 67, 1977, p. 398). So even though these findings are published, they are not promoted in our schools, or to you and I, because the prove, yes actual evidence, that evolution can't be true from it's core. The odds of accidentally producing the correct DNA code in a species or changing it into another viable species are mathematically impossible. This has repeatedly been established. (*J. Leslie, "Cosmology, Probability, and the Need to Explain Life," in Scientific American and Understanding, pp. 53, 64-65; *E. Ambrose, Nature and Origin of the Biological World, 1982, p. 135). Courville’s Research (1956). After 15 years of careful research, Donovan A. Courville, a Loma Linda University biochemist, published an important book, Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications. Courville correlated ancient Egyptian and Bible events and dates, providing us with one of the best ancient chronologies available. He showed that Manetho’s king-lists overlapped, resulting in a major reduction in the duration of Egypt’s dynastic history and a placement of its first double-ruler dynasty at around 2150 B.C. This study, along with others reviewed in chapter 21, Archaeological Dating, shows that archaeological dating does indeed correlate closely with Bible history. (Due to a lack of space, as we neared publishing time we had to omit most of this chapter; but it is on our website.) Editions of Darwin's own book disproves his evolution: *Thompson’s Attack on *Darwin (1956). W.R. Thompson, a leading evolutionist scientist, was asked to write the Introduction to the 1956 reprint edition of Darwin’s Origin of the Species. In it, Thompson scathingly attacked Darwin’s theories on every essential point as worthless (*W.R. Thompson, Introduction to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1956 edition). Two evolutionists claim the theory has hurt us: The same year, two major books attacking evolutionary theory in great detail were released: The first was *Gertrude Himmelfarb’s Darwin and the Darwinian Revolution. Holding a doctorate from the University of Chicago, her book was a powerful exposé on the havoc the theory has wrought on the modern world. The second in-depth book was by *Jacques Barzun, history professor and dean of the Graduate Faculties at Columbia University. His book, Darwin, Marx, Wagner, declared that evolutionary theory was directly responsible for European wars from 1870 to 1945. A little bias, and interestingly they are tied together: Biological Sciences Curriculum (1959). Another significant event that year was the establishment of a standardized Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS) for public secondary schools. The stated objective was the teaching of evolution, sex education, racial problems, and the need for legalizing abortion (*A.B. Grobman, Biological Science: An Inquiry into Life, p. xv). BSCS quickly received a $7 million grant from the National Science Foundation, to develop this new series. Shortly afterward, a second major textbook revision project, Man: A Course of Study, was given $7 million by the National Science Foundation. It was filled with humanism and morally objectionable interpretations of personal and social life. The one place God isn't found, is in lies. When ancient sailors sketched maps of the oceans they disclosed their fears. Cartographers wrote: "Here be dragons, here be demons, here be sirens." Sir John Franklin, a master mariner was a man of faith. On the maps passed to him with those phrases, he wrote, "Here be God." You will never go where God is not. I am with you always Jesus promised. Matthew 28:20 (Quoted from Max Lucado, Everyday Deserves a Change) Have you ever been shown this evidence? Neither had I. Revolt in France (early 1960s). A large number of French biologists and taxonomists (species classification experts) rebelled against the chains of the evolutionary creed and declared that they would continue their research, but would no longer try to prove evolution—which they considered an impossible theory. Taxonomists who joined the revolt took the name "cladists" (*Z. Litynski, "Should We Burn Darwin?" in Science Digest, Vol. 51, January 1961, p. 61). Evolutionary time is off, way off, proved by science. First Quasar Discovered (1962). Telescopes found a mysterious object, which was named 3C273. It had a spectrum that was unintelligible. This peculiar object radiated most strongly in the fringes of the visible spectrum. It was a total mystery until February 1963, when *Jesse Schmidt recognized that the problem was that it had a radical 16% shift toward the red. If the speed theory of redshift, promoted by evolutionists, was correct,—that meant the object was moving away from us at 16% of the speed of light—and was a massive 3 billion light-years from earth! As more—and apparently "faster"—quasars were discovered, the situation kept worsening. Ultimately, their existence debunked the evolutionists’ speed theory of redshift. Yet the redshift and background radiation were the only two "evidences" of an earlier Big Bang! For example, in 1977, a quasar was found which, according to the redshift theory, was moving faster (eight times faster) than the speed of light! Of course, scientists know it is impossible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light (*George Abell, Exploration of the Universe, 1973, p. 409; *Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries, 1990, pp. 68-69; *Sky and Telescope 53, 1977, p. 1702). I have heard many times that "real scientists" agree on evolution. When asked about dissension among them, I am often told, there isn't any. The Switzerland Meeting (1965). It was not until the 1960s that the neo-Darwinists (those who had given up on natural selection and believed that mutations were the mechanism of cross-species change) began fighting with one another in earnest. At this meeting of mathematicians and biologists, mathematical doubts were raised about the possibility of evolution having occurred. At the end of several hours of heated discussion, it was decided to hold another meeting the next year. The Wistar Institute Symposium (1966). A milestone meeting was the four-day Wistar Institute Symposium, held in Philadelphia in April 1966. A number of mathematicians, familiar with biological problems, spoke—and clearly refuted neo-Darwinism in several ways. An important factor was that large computers were by this time able to work out immense calculations—showing that evolution could not possibly occur, even over a period of billions of years, given the complexities of DNA, protein, the cell, enzymes, and other factors. We will cite one example here: *Murray Eden of MIT explained that life could not begin by "random selection." He noted that, if randomness is removed, only "design" would remain,—and that required purposive planning by an Intelligence. He showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. Coli (which has very little DNA), with 5 billion years in which to produce it. Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance. He also reported on his extensive investigations into genetic data on hemoglobin (red blood cells). Hemoglobin has two chains, called alpha and beta. A minimum of 120 mutations would be required to convert alpha to beta. At least 34 of those changes require changeovers in 2 or 3 nucleotides. Yet, Eden pointed out, if a single nucleotide change occurs through mutation, the result ruins the blood and kills the organism! For more on the Wistar Institute, read the following book: *Paul Moorhead and *Martin Kaplan (eds.), Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Wistar Institute Monograph No. 5. Again, evolution requires a vast amount of time, there isn't any. Antelope Springs Tracks (1968). Trilobites are small marine creatures that are now extinct. Evolutionists tell us that trilobites are one of the most ancient creatures that have ever lived on Planet Earth, and they lived millions of years before there were human beings. *William J. Meister, Sr., a non-Christian evolutionist, made a hobby of searching for trilobite fossils in the mountains of Utah. On June 1, 1968, he found a human footprint and trilobites in the same rock, and the footprint was stepping on some of the trilobites! The location was Antelope Springs, about 43 miles [69 km] northwest of Delta, Utah. Then, breaking off a large two-inch thick piece of rock, he hit it on the edge with a hammer, and it fell open in his hands. To his great astonishment, he found on one side the footprint of a human being, with trilobites right in the footprint itself! The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of a footprint and fossils. Amazingly, the human was wearing a sandal! To make a longer story short, the find was confirmed when scientists came and found more sandaled footprints. Meister was so stunned that he became a Christian. This was Cambrian strata, the lowest level of strata in the world; yet it had sandaled human footprints! ("Discovery of Trilobite Fossils in Shod Footprint of Human in ‘Trilobite Beds,’ a Cambrian Formation, Antelope Springs, Utah," in Why Not Creation? 1970, p. 190). *Matthews Attacks Darwinism (1971). By the latter part of the 20th century, even though the ignorant public continued to be told that evolution was a triumphant, proven success, it was difficult to find any scientist who would defend Darwin’s theories before his peers. *L. Harrison Matthews, another distinguished scientist, was asked to write a new introduction to Darwin’s Origin of the Species, to replace *Thompson’s 1956 Introduction which scathingly attacked Darwinism. In his Introduction, Matthews said that Thompson’s attacks on Darwin were "unanswerable." Then Matthews proceeded to add more damaging facts (*L. Harrison Matthews, Introduction to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1971 edition). *Matthews Attacks Darwinism (1971). By the latter part of the 20th century, even though the ignorant public continued to be told that evolution was a triumphant, proven success, it was difficult to find any scientist who would defend Darwin’s theories before his peers. *L. Harrison Matthews, another distinguished scientist, was asked to write a new introduction to Darwin’s Origin of the Species, to replace *Thompson’s 1956 Introduction which scathingly attacked Darwinism. In his Introduction, Matthews said that Thompson’s attacks on Darwin were "unanswerable." Then Matthews proceeded to add more damaging facts (*L. Harrison Matthews, Introduction to Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, 1971 edition). Proof man walked with dinosaurs. *Leakey’s Footprints (1977). Throughout the 20th century, human footprints have been found in supposedly ancient rock, sometimes with dinosaur prints. We will mention only a couple examples in this chapter (see chapter 13, Ancient Man, for more). In approximately 1977, *Mary Leaky found at Laetoli in Africa, 30 miles [48 km] south of Olduvai Gorge, human footprints which, by the strata they are on, evolutionists date at nearly 4 million years in the past. Yet they are identical to modern human footprints. These and other footprints disprove evolutionary theories, especially those in which dinosaur prints are found with human footprints. Dinosaurs are said to be dated from 65 million to 135 million years ago; whereas man is said to have appeared far more recently (National Geographic, April 1979; Science News, February 9, 1980). One of the best proofs ever is in the rocks themselves, the fossils: Sunderland Interviews the Experts (1980-1981). Over a one-year period, and with their permission, Luther Sunderland tape-recorded interviews with three of the most important paleontologists in the world, who are in charge of at least 50 percent of the major fossil collections on the planet, covering every basic fossil discovery in the past 150 years. He found that not one of them could name a single missing link, a halfway species between our regular species (L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89). There are no transitional forms. For more on this, see chapter 12, Fossils and Strata. Here's some more amazing proof that the leading evolutionary scientists can't agree: Chicago Evolution Conference (1980). While the newspapers, popular magazines, and school textbooks emblazoned evolutionary theory as being essentially proven scientifically in so many ways, the evolutionist scientists were discouraged. They knew the truth. The Switzerland, Wistar, and Alpbach meetings had clearly shown that theirs was a losing cause. However, in yet another futile effort, in October 1980, 160 of the world’s leading evolutionist scientists met again, this time at the University of Chicago. In brief, it was a verbal explosion. Facts opposing evolution were presented, and angry retorts and insults were hurled in return. The following month, *Newsweek (November 3, 1980) reported that a large majority of evolutionists at the conference agreed that not even the neo-Darwinian mechanism (of mutations working with natural selection) could no longer be regarded as scientifically valid or tenable. Neither the origin nor diversity of living creatures could be explained by evolutionary theory (*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980; *G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery, 1983, p. 55). Why is the public still told that evolution is essentially proven and all the scientists believe it,—when both claims are far from the truth? Paleontology: New York City Evolution Conference (1981). The following year, another important meeting was held, this one at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. *Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, read a paper in which he declared that evolution was "positively anti-knowledge" and added, "All my life I had been duped into taking evolution as revealed truth." Yet Patterson is in charge of millions of fossil samples; and he is well-acquainted with the collection. Commenting on the crisis, another scientist, *Michael Ruse, wrote that the increasing number of critics included many with "the highest intellectual credentials" (*Michael Ruse, "Darwin’s Theory: An Exercise in Science," in New Scientist, June 25, 1981, p. 828). *Halton C. Arp Eliminated (1983). A leading astronomer and president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific in the early 1980s, Arp carried on research for over 30 years, including extensive research time at Palomar and Mount Wilson Observatories. He studied over 260 galaxies in more than 80 groups and tabulated 24 main galaxies and 38 discordant redshift companions, plus much more. His studies clearly refuted the speed theory of redshift which, along with background radiation, was the crutch that evolutionists leaned on to defend the Big Bang (*Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, 1987, p. 5, plus many scientific articles). Threatened with disbarment from U.S. observatories, if he did not stop tearing down one of the two Big Bang pillars, he refused. A few eminent astronomers, including the renowned astrophysicist, *Geoffrey Burbidge, made impassioned pleas for everyone to keep an open mind, but to no avail. In 1983, Caltech’s telescope allocation committee decided that Arp’s line of research was not worthy of support and he was to receive no more time for his work at the telescopes of the Mount Wilson and Palomar observatories. Refusing to switch over to politically acceptable studies, he left Caltech for a position at the Max Planck Institute in Munich, where he continued to pursue his ideas. Referring to his abrupt and ignoble ouster, Burbidge later wrote, ‘No responsible scientist I know, including many astronomers who were strongly opposed to Arp’s thesis, believes justice was served’ " (*Time-Life, Cosmic Mysteries, 1990, pp. 67-68). It is now very hard to get an evolutionist to debate a Creationist: "I doubt if there is any single individual within the scientific community who could cope with the full range of [Creationist] arguments without the help of an army of consultants in special fields."—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creation," Bulletin of the Field Museum of Natural History, Vol. 54, March 1983, p. 18. The Big Bang: 1 - The Big Bang theory is based on theoretical extremes. It may look good in math calculations, but it can’t actually happen. A tiny bit of nothing packed so tightly together that it blew up and produced all the matter in the universe. Seriously now, this is a fairy tale. It is a bunch of armchair calculations, and nothing else. It is easy to theorize on paper. The Big Bang is a theoretical extreme, just as is a black hole. It is easy to theorize that something is true, when it has never been seen and there is no definitive evidence that it exists or ever happened. Let us not mistake Disneyland theories for science. 2 - Nothingness cannot pack together. It would have no way to push itself into a pile. 3 - A vacuum has no density. It is said that the nothingness got very dense, and that is why it exploded. But a total vacuum is the opposite of total density. 4 - There would be no ignition to explode nothingness. No fire and no match. It could not be a chemical explosion, for no chemicals existed. It could not be a nuclear explosion, for there were no atoms! 5 - There is no way to expand it. How can you expand what isn’t there? Even if that magical vacuum could somehow be pulled together by gravity, what would then cause the pile of emptiness to push outward? The "gravity" which brought it together would keep it from expanding. 6 - Nothingness cannot produce heat. The intense heat caused by the exploding nothingness is said to have changed the nothingness into protons, neutrons, and electrons. First, an empty vacuum in the extreme cold of outer space cannot get hot by itself. Second, an empty void cannot magically change itself into matter. Third, there can be no heat without an energy source. 7 – The calculations are too exacting. Too perfect an explosion would be required. On many points, the theoretical mathematical calculations needed to turn a Big Bang into stars and our planet cannot be worked out; in others they are too exacting. Knowledgeable scientists call them "too perfect." Mathematical limitations would have to be met which would be next to impossible to achieve. The limits for success are simply too narrow. Most aspects of the theory are impossible, and some require parameters that would require miracles to fulfill. One example of this is the expansion of the original fireball from the Big Bang, which they place precisely within the narrowest of limits. An evolutionist astronomer, *R.H. Dicke, says it well: "If the fireball had expanded only .1 percent faster, the present rate of expansion would have been 3 x 103 times as great. Had the initial expansion rate been 0.1 percent less, the Universe would have expanded to only 3 x 10-6 of its present radius before collapsing. At this maximum radius the density of ordinary matter would have been 10-12 grm/m3, over 1016 times as great as the present mass density. No stars could have formed in such a Universe, for it would not have existed long enough to form stars."—*R.H. Dickey, Gravitation and the Universe (1969), p. 62. 8 - Such an equation would have produced not a universe but a hole. *Roger L. St. Peter in 1974 developed a complicated mathematical equation that showed that the theorized Big Bang could not have exploded outward into hydrogen and helium. In reality, St. Peter says the theoretical explosion (if one could possibly take place) would fall back on itself and make a theoretical black hole! This means that one imaginary object would swallow another one! 9 - There is not enough antimatter in the universe. This is a big problem for the theorists. The original Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of positive matter (matter) and negative matter (antimatter). But only small amounts of antimatter exist. There should be as much antimatter as matter—if the Big Bang was true. "Since matter and antimatter are equivalent in all respects but that of electromagnetic charge oppositeness, any force [the Big Bang] that would create one should have to create the other, and the universe should be made of equal quantities of each. This is a dilemma. Theory tells us there should be antimatter out there, and observation refuses to back it up."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, p. 343. "We are pretty sure from our observations that the universe today contains matter, but very little if any antimatter."—*Victor Weisskopf, "The Origin of the Universe," American Scientist, 71, p. 479. 10 - The antimatter from the Big Bang would have destroyed all the regular matter. This fact is well-known to physicists. As soon as the two are produced in the laboratory, they instantly come together and annihilate one another. These solar system theories do not explain where stars, planets, and moons originated or how they arrived at their present, intricate pattern. Such precision could not come about by chance. Every moon is located at the precise distance to keep it from flying into or away from its planet. How could all this originate from a single explosion or collision? None of these theories fit into the laws of physics, as we know them. On pp. 97-101 of his book, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, the leading evolutionist science writer of the 20th century describes and tears to pieces each of the stellar/solar system theories. (It is quoted on our website.) Two astronomers: A scientific study of the universe has suggested a conclusion which may be summed up in the statement that the universe appears to have been designed by a pure mathematician."—*Sir James Jeans, The Mysterious Universe, p. 140. "It seems to be one of the fundamental features of nature that fundamental physical laws are described in terms of a mathematical theory of great beauty and power, needing quite a high standard of mathematics for one to understand it . . One could perhaps describe the situation by saying that God is a mathematician of a very high order, and He used very advanced mathematics in constructing the universe."—*Scientific American, May 1963, p. 53. "The universe we see when we look out to its farthest horizons contains a hundred billion galaxies. Each of these galaxies contains another hundred billion stars. That’s 1022 stars all told. The silent embarrassment of modern astrophysics is that we do not know how even a single one of these stars managed to form."—*Martin Harwit, "Book Reviews," Science, March 1986, pp. 1201-1202. "The problem of explaining the existence of the galaxies has proved to be one of the thorniest in cosmology. By all rights, they just shouldn’t be there, yet there they sit. It’s hard to convey the depth of frustration that this simple fact induces among scientists."—*James Trefil, Dark Side of the Universe (1988), p. 55. "If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."—*G.R. Burbidge, quoted by *R.L. Sears and *Robert R. Brownlee (eds: *L.H. Aller and *D. McLaughlin) Stellar Structures (1963), p. 577. "But if we had a reliable theory of the origin of planets, if we knew of some mechanism consistent with the laws of physics so that we understood how planets form, then clearly we could make use of it to estimate the probability that other stars have attendant planets. However no such theory exists yet, despite the large number of hypotheses suggested."—*R.A. Lyttleton, Mysteries of the Solar System (1968), p. 4. This lie is important, and like Darwin feared, it has had the most devastating effect on society. "Like most scientists, Einstein included, I have an almost religious belief in a basic underlying order—a belief that natural forces are just manifestations of some deeper thing."—*William Kaufmann, "Luminous Reputations," in Science Digest, Vol. 89, No. 1 (1981), p. 8. "The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy . . For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."—*Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers (1978) [one of the best-known astronomers of the 20th century]. "Everything points with overwhelming force to a definite event or events of Creation at some time or times not infinitely remote."—*Sir James Jeans, Eos or The Wider Aspects of Cosmogeny, p. 35. Sir Isaac Newton is considered one of the two greatest scientists of the last 500 years. He clearly saw the implications of celestial mechanics and the intricately designed wonders in the sky. "One day, as Newton sat reading in his study with his mechanism on a large table near him, a friend, who saw things differently than he did, stepped in. Scientist that he was, he recognized at a glance what was before him. Stepping up to it, he slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. "Standing off a few feet he exclaimed, ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it?’ Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, ‘Nobody.’ "Quickly turning to Newton, his friend said, ‘Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this?’ Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that nobody made it, but that the apparatus had just happened to assume the form it was in. "The astonished man replied with some heat, ‘You must think I am a fool! Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is!’ "Laying his book aside, Newton arose and said, ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system, whose laws you know,—and here I am not able to convince you that this mere toy before you is without a designer and maker! " ‘Yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken, with its more massive and complicated orbital motions, has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such a conclusion?’ "—The Minnesota Technolog, October 1957. "I know of no reason [for the motion of the planets] but because the Author of the system thought it convenient."—Isaac Newton, Four Letters to Richard Bentley, in *Milton K. Munitz (ed.), Theories of the Universe (1957), p. 212. Evidence that our solar system can't be that old: SOLAR COLLAPSE—Research studies indicate that our sun is gradually shrinking at a steady rate of seconds of arc per century. At its rate of shrinkage, as little as 50,000 years ago the sun would have been so large that our oceans would boil. But in far less a time than 50,000 years, life here would have ceased to exist. Recent studies have disclosed that neither the size of the sun, nor our distance from it, could be much greater or smaller—in order for life to be sustained on our planet. "By analyzing data from Greenwich Observatory in the period 1836-1953, John A. Eddy [Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and High Altitude Observatory in Boulder] and Aram A. Boornazian [mathematician with S. Ross and Co. in Boston] have found evidence that the sun has been contracting about 0.1% per century during that time, corresponding to a shrinkage rate of about 5 feet per hour. And digging deep into historical records, Eddy has found 400-year-old eclipse observations that are consistent with such a shrinkage."— *"Sun is Shrinking," Physics Today, September 1979. Extrapolating back, 100,000 years ago, the sun would have been about twice its present size, making life untenable. LUNAR RECESSION—Scientists have discovered two interesting facts: (1) The moon is already far too close to the earth, and (2) it is gradually moving farther away from us. This is called recession of the moon. Due to tidal friction, the moon is slowly spiraling outward away from planet earth! Based on the rate at which the moon is receding from us, the earth and the moon cannot be very old. This is an important point and can in no way be controverted. The present rate of recession clearly indicates a young age for the earth-moon system. If the moon were older—even 20 to 30,000 years old,—it would at that earlier time have been so close that it would have fallen into the earth! "The moon is slowly receding from Earth at about 4 cm [1½ in] per year, and the rate would have been greater in the past. The moon could never have been closer than 18,400 km [11,500 miles], known as the Roche Limit, because Earth’s tidal forces would have shattered it."—Jonathan Sarfati, Creation Ex Nihilo, September 1979. EARTH ROTATION—The spin of the earth—which is now about 1,000 miles [1609 km] an hour—is gradually slowing down. Gravitational drag forces of the sun, moon, and other factors cause this. If the earth were really billions of years old, as claimed, it would already have stopped turning on its axis! This is yet another evidence that our world is not very old. Lord Kelvin (the 19th-century physicist who introduced the Kelvin temperature scale) used this slowing rotation as a reason why the earth could not be very old. The decline in rotation rate is now known to be greater than previously thought (Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to ‘Geologic Times,’ " Impact 16, July 1974). Using a different calculation, we can extrapolate backward from our present spin rate; and 5 billion years ago our planet would have had to be spinning so fast it would have changed to the shape of a flat pancake. We, today, would still have the effects of that: Our equator would now reach 40 miles [64 km] up into the sky, and our tropical areas—and all our oceans—would be at the poles. So, by either type of calculation, our world cannot be more than a few thousand years old. Science proves young dates: MAGNETIC FIELD DECAY—As you probably know, the earth has a magnetic field. Without it, we could not use compasses to identify the direction of magnetic north (which is close to the North Pole). Dr. Thomas G. Barnes, a physics teacher at the University of Texas, has authored a widely used college textbook on electricity and magnetism. Working with data collected over the past 135 years, he has pointed out that earth’s magnetic field is gradually decaying. Indeed, he has shown that this magnetic field is decreasing exponentially, according to a decay law similar to the decay of radioactive substances. In 1835 the German physicist, K.F. Gauss, made the first measurement of the earth’s magnetic dipole moment; that is, the strength of earth’s internal magnet. Additional evaluations have been carried out every decade or so since then. Since 1835, global magnetism has decreased 14 percent! On the basis of facts obtained from 1835 to 1965, this magnetic field appears to have a half-life of 1,400 years. On this basis, even 7,000 years ago, the earth would have had a magnetic field 32 times stronger than it now has. Just 20,000 years ago, enough Joule heat would have been generated to liquefy the earth. One million years ago the earth would have had greater magnetism than all objects in the universe, and it would have vaporized! It would appear that the earth could not be over 6,000 or 7,000 years old. (On the accompanying graph, beyond the point where the curve becomes vertical, our planet would have had the magnetosphere power of a magnetic star!) "The over-all intensity of the field is declining at a rate of 26 nanoteslas per year . . If the rate of decline were to continue steadily, the field strength would reach zero in 1,200 years."—*"Magnetic Field Declining," Science News, June 28, 1980. "In the next two millennia, if the present rate of decay is sustained, the dipole component of the [earth’s magnetic] field should reach zero."—*Scientific American, December 1989. Science proves date of Noah's flood:RIVER DELTAS—Did you ever see an air-view photograph of the Mississippi River delta? You can find an outline of it on any larger United States map. That river dumps 300 million cubic yards [229 million cubic meters] of mud into the Gulf of Mexico every year, at the point where the river enters the gulf. For this reason, the State of Louisiana keeps becoming larger. Yet, for the amount of sediment dumping that occurs, the Mississippi delta is not very large. In fact, calculations reveal it has only been forming for the past 4,000 years. The Mississippi-Missouri river system is the longest in the world and is about 4,221 miles [6,792 km] in length. Because, below Cape Girardeau, flatland inundation along the Mississippi has always been a problem, over a hundred years ago, Congress commissioned *General Andrew A. Humphreys to make a survey of the whole area. It was completed in 1861. The English evolutionist, *Charles Lyell, had earlier made a superficial examination of the river and its delta and declared the river system to be 60,000 years old since, he said, the delta was 528 feet [1609 dm] deep. But Humphreys showed that the actual depth of the delta was only 40 feet. Below that was the blue clay of the Gulf, and below that, marine fossils. His discovery revealed that the lower Mississippi valley used to be a marine estuary. Using Lyell’s formula for age computation, Humphreys arrived at an age of about 4,620 years, which would be approximately the time of the Genesis Flood. According to evolutionary theory, everything occurs at a uniform rate and the earth is billions of years old. If that is so, 80,000 years ago the Persian Gulf would have reached to Paris! At the same rate of delta formation, 120,000 years ago the Gulf of Mexico would have extended up through the Mississippi River—to the North Pole! GROWTH OF CORAL—Coral in the ocean grows at a definite rate. Analysis of coral growth in the oceans reveals that ours is a young world. "Estimated old ages for the earth are frequently based on ‘clocks’ that today are ticking at very slow rates. For example, coral growth rates were for many years thought to be very slow, implying that some coral reefs must be hundreds of thousands of years old. More accurate measurements of these rates under favorable growth conditions now show us that no known coral formation need be older than 3,500 years (A.A. Roth, ‘Coral Reef Growth,’ Origins, Vol. 6, No. 2, 1979, pp. 88-95)."—W.T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 14. Tree ring dating also proves flood date: TREE RINGS—The giant sequoias of California have no known enemies except man. And only recently did man (with his saws) have the ability to easily destroy them. Insects do not bother them, nor even forest fires. They live on, century after century. Yet the sequoias are never older than about 4,000 years. These giant redwoods seem to be the original trees that existed in their timber stands. Sequoia gigantea, in their groves in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, never have any dead trees ("snags") among them. Unless man cuts them down, there is no evidence that they ever die! The University of Arizona has a department that specializes in tree dating. *Edmund Schulman of its Dendrochronological Laboratory discovered a stand of still older trees in the White Mountains of California. These were bristlecone pines (Pinus longalva). Beginning in 1978, Walter Lammerts, a plant scientist, spent several years working with bristlecone pine seedlings in their native habitat of Arizona. He discovered that the San Francisco Mountain region, in which they grow, has spring and fall rains with a very dry summer in between. Working carefully with the seedlings and giving them the same type of watering and other climatic conditions that they would normally receive,—he found that much of the time the bristlecone pines produce two growth rings a year. This is an important discovery, for it would indicate that the sequoias—not the bristlecone pines—are probably the oldest living things on earth. Think of it! Today we have just ONE generation of the Sequoia gigantea! Both the parent trees and their offspring are still alive. There is no record of any tree or other living thing that is older than any reasonable date given for the Genesis Flood. In the case of the giant sequoias, there is no reason why they could not have lived for many thousands of years beyond their present life span. For additional information on tree ring dating, see chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods. 50 - MUTATION LOAD—Before completing this section on the evidence from living things, it is of interest that one researcher, *H.T. Band, discovered in the early 1960s that natural selection was not eliminating the "genetic load" (the gradually increasing negative effect of mutation on living organisms). Thus mutational defects are accumulating, even though some are only on recessive genes. Calculations, based on genetic load, indicate that life forms could not have continued more than several thousand years—and still be as free from mutational defects as they now are. There are many more facts here:http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-4b.htm Dates times & people groups Cililation's records appear suddenly, only a few thousands of years ago, just like the bible says: HISTORICAL RECORDS—If mankind has been living and working on Planet Earth for millions of years, why do we find records of man only dating back to about 2000-3500 B.C.? And these records, when found, reveal the existence of highly developed civilizations. As is shown more fully in chapter 13, Ancient Man, the writings, language, and cultures of ancient mankind started off fully developed—but are not found to have begun until about 2000-3000 B.C. It is conservatively considered that the first books of the Bible were written by Moses c. 1510-1450 B.C. (The date of the Exodus would be about 1492 B.C.) Chronological data in the book of Genesis would indicate that Creation Week occurred about 4000 B.C., and that the date of the Flood was about 2348 B.C. "The earliest Chinese date which can be assigned with any probability is 2250 B.C., based on an astronomical reference in the Book of History."—*Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (1955), p. 520. Ture accurate human records clearly date according to biblical records CIVILIZATIONS—It is highly significant that no truly verified archaeological datings predate the period of about 3000 B.C. When larger dates are cited, they come from radiocarbon dating, from methods other than written human records, or from the suspect Manetho’s Egyptian king-list. LANGUAGES—Mankind is so intelligent that languages were soon put into written records, which were left lying about on the surface of the earth. We know that differences in dialect and language suddenly developed shortly after the Flood, at which time men separated and traveled off in groups whose members could understand one another (Genesis 11:1-9). The records of ancient languages never go back beyond c. 3000 B.C. Philological and linguistic studies reveal that a majority of them are part of large "language families"; and most of these appear to radiate outward from the area of Babylonia. It is thought that the period between 1650 and 1850 would be a typical time span to analyze population growth prior to our present century, with its many technological advantages. One estimate, based on population changes between 1650 and 1850, provides us with the fact that at about the year 3300 B.C. there was only one family! "The human population grows so rapidly that its present size could have been reached in less than 1% (3200 years) of the minimum time assumed (½ million years) for man on the basis of radiometric dating."—Ariel A. Roth, summary from "Some Questions about Geochronology," in Origins, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1886, pp. 59-60. If, in contrast, the human race had been on earth for one million years, as the evolutionists declare, even with a very low growth rate of 0.01 (1/100) percent annually, the resulting population by the time of Christ would be 2 x 1043 people (2 x 1043 is the numeral 2 followed by 43 zeros!). A thousand solar systems, with nine planets like ours could barely hold that many people, packed in solid! In 1862, *Thompson said the earth was 20 million years old. Thirty-five years later, in 1897, he doubled it to 40 million. Two years later, *J. Joly said it was 90 million. *Rayleigh, in 1921, said the earth has been here for 1 billion years. Eleven years later, *W.O. Hotchkiss moved the figure up to 1.6 billion (1,600,000,000). *A Holmes in 1947 declared it to be 3.35 billion (3,350,000,000); and, in 1956, he raised it to 4.5 billion (4,500,000,000). Just now, the age of the earth stands at about 5 billion years. Pretty soon, someone will raise it again. Men dream up theories, and then they call it science. The young earth evidence is powerful. As discussed in this chapter, (1) ultraviolet light has only built up a thin layer of moon dust; (2) short half-life radioactive non-extinct isotopes have been found in moon rocks; (3) the moon is receding from earth at a speed which requires a very young earth;—and on and on the solid evidence goes, throughout the remainder of the chapter you have just completed. Read it again. It is solid and definite. (4) The lack of ancient human records on solar eclipses is alone enough to date man’s existence on the earth. Men are so intelligent that, in various places on earth, they have always kept written records—yet such records do not exist prior to about 4300 years ago. The evidence for Creation science is clear and forthright. In a word, it is scientific. "It is no secret that evolutionists worship at the shrine of time. There is little difference between the evolutionist saying ‘time did it’ and the Creationist saying ‘God did it.’ Time and chance is a two-headed deity. Much scientific effort has been expended in an attempt to show that eons of time are available for evolution."—Randy Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (1976), p. 137. Two of England’s leading evolutionist scientists, *Hoyle and *Wickramasinghe, working independently of each other, came to this conclusion: The chance of life appearing spontaneously from non-life in the universe is effectively zero! (*Fred Hoyle and *C. Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space). One of these researchers is an agnostic and the other a Buddhist; yet both decided from their analyses that the origin of life demands the existence of God to have created it. The London Daily Express (August 14, 1981) put the conclusion of these two scientists into headlines: "Two skeptical scientists put their heads together and reached an amazing conclusion: There must be a God." *Hoyle and *Wickramasinghe concluded in their book that the probability of producing life, anywhere in the universe from evolutionary processes, was as reasonable as getting a fully operational Boeing 747 jumbo jet from a tornado going through a junkyard (*Fred Hoyle, Science, November 12, 1981, p. 105). The co-discoverer of the DNA molecule said this: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88. If human beings have been on this planet for over a million years, as theorized by evolutionists, then we should have a large amount of structures and written records extending back at least 500,000 years. *Weisz in his book, The Science of Biology (p. 636), tells us that, by the beginning of the eighteenth century, evolutionists "recognized that any concept of evolution demanded an earth of sufficiently great age; and they set out to estimate this age." The long ages were the result of wishful thinking. *Darwin himself recognized the problem. "The belief that species are immutable [unchangeable] productions was almost unavoidable as long as the history of the world was thought to be of short duration."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species (conclusion to second edition). That is a meaningful statement. *Darwin said it, because there is no evidence of evolution occurring at any time in recorded history. Evolution could not occur in the past unless the earth had been here for long ages. Yet there is clear-cut evidence that our planet is not over 6000-10,000 years old (see chapter 4, Age of the Earth). And when all the facts are studied, the age of the earth leans more toward the 6000 mark than the 10,000 mark. MAJOR DATING METHODS—Several types of dating methods are used today. Chief among them are: (1) Uranium-thorium-lead dating, based on the disintegration of uranium and thorium into radium, helium, etc., and finally into lead. (2) Rubidium-strontium dating, based on the decay of rubidium into strontium. (3) Potassium-argon dating, based on the disintegration of potassium into argon and calcium. SEVEN INITIAL ASSUMPTIONS—At the very beginning of this analysis, we need to clearly understand a basic fact: Each of these special dating methods can only have accuracy IF (if!) certain assumptions ALWAYS (always!) apply to EACH specimen that is tested. Here are seven of these fragile assumptions: (1) Each system has to be a closed system; that is, nothing can contaminate any of the parents or the daughter products while they are going through their decay process—or the dating will be thrown off. Ideally, in order to do this, each specimen tested needs to have been sealed in a jar with thick lead walls for all its previous existence, supposedly millions of years! But in actual field conditions, there is no such thing as a closed system. One piece of rock cannot for millions of years be sealed off from other rocks, as well as from water, chemicals, and changing radiations from outer space. (2) Each system must initially have contained none of its daughter products. A piece of uranium 238 must originally have had no lead or other daughter products in it. If it did, this would give a false date reading. But this assumption can in no way be confirmed. It is impossible to know what was initially in a given piece of radioactive mineral. Was it all of this particular radioactive substance or were some other indeterminate or final daughter products mixed in? We do not know; we cannot know. Men can guess; they can apply their assumptions, come up with some dates, announce the consistent ones, and hide the rest, which is exactly what evolutionist scientists do! (3) The process rate must always have been the same. The decay rate must never have changed. Yet we have no way of going back into past ages and ascertaining whether that assumption is correct. Every process in nature operates at a rate that is determined by a number of factors. These factors can change or vary with a change in certain conditions. Rates are really statistical averages, not deterministic constants. The most fundamental of the initial assumptions is that all radioactive clocks, including carbon 14, have always had a constant decay rate that is unaffected by external influences—now and forever in the past. But it is a known fact among scientists that such changes in decay rates can and do occur. Laboratory testing has established that such resetting of specimen clocks does happen. Field evidence reveals that decay rates have indeed varied in the past. The decay rate of any radioactive mineral can be altered [1] if the mineral is bombarded by high energy particles from space (such as neutrinos, cosmic rays, etc.); [2] if there is, for a time, a nearby radioactive mineral emitting radiation; [3] if physical pressure is brought to bear upon the radioactive mineral; or [4] if certain chemicals are brought in contact with it. (4) One researcher, *John Joly of Trinity College, Dublin, spent years studying pleochroic halos emitted by radioactive substances. In his research he found evidence that the long half-life minerals have varied in their decay rate in the past! "His [Joly’s] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods."—*A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107. For more proofs of bad dating, which covers all known dating methods, please go to: http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-6a.htm There are only three primary methods of long-ages dating: (1) fossil-bearing rock strata, (2) radioactive dating, and (3) carbon-14 dating. In the chapter on Fossils, we will discover that dating rocks by their fossils is based on circular reasoning: (1) Each strata is a certain age because of certain key fossils in it; (2) the fossils in the strata are a certain age because evolutionary theory says they should be that certain age, and also because they are in rock strata said to be that age. Thus, fossil/strata-dating methods are hopelessly foundered. (1) Early in the 19th century, evolutionists decided that fossils in certain rock strata should be such-and-such an age. (2) So they gave the strata containing those fossils dates which would match their fossil age theories. (3) Then they announced that they had thought up the dates by peering at so-called "index fossils." (4) They declared that they could now prove the ages of the fossils in the rocks—by the rock strata they were in. Thus, they started out by dating the strata by imagined dates for fossils; and they ended up dating the fossils by applying those imagined dates to the strata! This circular reasoning pattern has continued on down to the present day in regard to the dating of fossils and strata. But then, as the 20th century began, radioactive mineral dating began to be discovered. Repeatedly, scientists have tried to correlate radioactive dating with the dates they applied to fossils and strata a century before radiodating was known. But they have not been able to do so. Out of literally thousands of tests, they have been able to correlate only three of them (the Colorado, Bohemian, and Swedish dates given in the *Knopf quotation [a lengthy statement we did not have room to include in this paperback]. The evolutionists decided that three successes out of hundreds of thousands of test failures were enough to make their fossil/strata theory "scientific," by matching radiodating. It is on this basis that evolutionist scientists now grandly proclaim that the fossiliferous strata have been dated by radioactive minerals! See chapter 12, Fossils and Strata, for much, much more on this. SOME DATING SAMPLES—To conclude this section on radiodating problems, here are a few dating samples. Many, many, many more could have been cited! "Sunset Crater, an Arizona Volcano, is known from tree-ring dating to be about 1000 years old. But potassium-argon put it at over 200,000 years [*G.B. Dalrymple, ‘40 Ar/36 Ar Analyses of Historical Lava Flows,’ Earth and Planetary Science Letters 6, 1969, pp. 47-55]. "For the volcanic island of Rangitoto in New Zealand, potassium-argon dated the lava flows as 145,000 to 465,000 years old, but the journal of the Geochemical Society noted that ‘the radiocarbon, geological and botanical evidence unequivocally shows that it was active and was probably built during the last 1000 years.’ In fact, wood buried underneath its lava has been carbon-dated as less than 350 years old [*Ian McDougall, *H.A. Polach, and *J.J. Stipp, ‘Excess Radiogenic Argon in Young Subaerial Basalts from Auckland Volcanic Field, New Zealand,’ Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, December 1969, pp. 1485, 1499]. "Even the lava dome of Mount St. Helens [produced in 1980] has been radiometrically dated at 2.8 million years [H.M. Morris, ‘Radiometric Dating,’ Back to Genesis, 1997]."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard (1999), p. 146. "It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been adopted as ‘acceptable’ by investigators."—*J. Ogden III, "The Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon," in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 288, 1977, pp. 167-173. *Flint and *Rubin declare that radiocarbon dating is consistent within itself. What they do not mention is that the published C-14 dates are only "consistent" because the very large number of radiocarbon dates which are not consistent are discarded! Two researchers from the University of Uppsala, Sweden, in their report to the Twelfth Nobel Symposium, said this: "C-14 dating was being discussed at a symposium on the prehistory of the Nile Valley. A famous American colleague, Professor Brew, briefly summarized a common attitude among archaeologists toward it, as follows: ‘If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely ‘out-of-date,’ we just drop it."—*T. Save-Soderbergh and *Ingrid U. Olsson, "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology," Radiocarbon Variations and Absolute Chronology, ed. *Ingrid U. Olsson (1970), p. 35 [also in *Pensee, 3(1): 44]. Now let us consider the underlying assumptions about radiocarbon dating that are made in order to make it a workable method, even though not a reliable one. (1) Atmospheric carbon: For the past several million years, the air around us had the same amount of atmospheric carbon that it now has. (2) Oceanic carbon: During that time, the very large amount of oceanic carbon has not changed in size. (3) Cosmic rays: Cosmic rays from outer space have reached the earth in the same amounts in the past as now. (4) Balance of rates: Both the rate of formation and rate of decay of carbon 14 have always in the past remained in balance. (5) Decay rates: The decay rate of carbon 14 has never changed. (6) No contamination: Nothing has ever contaminated any specimen containing carbon 14. (7) No seepage: No seepage of water or other factor has brought additional carbon 14 to the sample since death occurred. (8) Amount of carbon 14 at death: The fraction of carbon 14, which the living thing possessed at death, is known today. (9) Carbon 14 half-life: The half-life of carbon 14 has been accurately determined. (10) Atmospheric nitrogen: Nitrogen is the precursor to Carbon 14, so the amount of nitrogen in the atmosphere must have always been constant. (11) Instrumentation and analysis: The instrumentation is precise, working properly, and analytic methods are always carefully done. (12) Uniform results: The technique always yields the same results on the same sample or related samples that are obviously part of the same larger sample. (13) Earth’s magnetic field: Earth’s magnetic field was the same in the past as it is today. We have some big "ifs" in the above 13 assumptions! In reality, there is not one instance in which we can point to a C-14 sample and declare with certainty that EVEN ONE of those assumptions applies to it. LIBBY’S OTHER DISCOVERY—*Willard Libby’s training was in science, not history; so he and his co-workers were initially startled to learn that recorded history (actual historical events) only goes back to about 3000 B.C. They had been taught in school that it extended back 20,000 years! "Well-authenticated dates are known only back as far as about 1600 B.C. in Egyptian history, according to John G. Read [J.G. Read, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1970]. Thus, the meaning of dates by Carbon 14 prior to 1600 B.C. is still as yet controversial."—H.M. Morris, W.W. Boardman, and R.F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85. For more facts on how inaccurate carbon dating is, go here: http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-6b.htm THROWING OFF THE CLOCK—In his book, Evolution or Degeneration (1972, pp. 80-81), H.R. Siegler mentions that *Willard F. Libby, the developer of radiodating, found a serious discrepancy at a certain point in past history that indicated his assumed build-up of terrestrial radiocarbon was inaccurate. But, since he was convinced that the earth was millions of years old, he went ahead with his date assumptions. Siegler suggests that a relatively recent Creation (plus, we might add, the catastrophic effects of the Flood) would account for the discrepancy. Keep in mind that, before the Flood, a vast vapor canopy was in our atmosphere, which would tend to shield the earth from radiocarbon buildup. This is the problem: Prior to about 1600 B.C., radiodating tends to go wild. Something happened back then that threw the clock off. Creation scientists recognize that the problem was the Genesis Flood and the abnormal conditions that existed for centuries after it ended. DATA POINTS TO THE FLOOD—An immense number of plants and animals died at the time of the Flood, as recorded in Genesis 6-9. One would expect that radiocarbon dating should produce a large number of specimens that died at about the same time. Due to errors in dating, we would not expect those carbon-14 dates to correspond with the time of the Flood, but we should expect them to nonetheless point to a time when there was a dramatic increase in the number of deaths. In 1970, R. Whitelaw, of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, went through the research literature on radiocarbon dating and carefully compiled 25,000 C-14 dates up to that year. The specimens were of people, animals, and vegetation obtained from above and below sea level. Whitelaw then applied certain principles to help avoid disparity problems between radiocarbon production and disintegration. He then put the results of his research into a single graph. The chart (shown on the next page) shows a gradual increase in deaths from about 5000 B.C. onward. The deaths peaked at about 4,000 years ago (2000 B.C.). Errors in radiocarbon dating would be responsible for the 2,000-year spread in the largest number of deaths—although the Flood took place in a much smaller period of time. (Biblical chronology indicates that the Genesis Flood occurred c. 2348 B.C.) But the basic facts are there: A gigantic loss of life occurred at about that time. Robert Whitelaw found that 15,000 C-14 dates placed it about 2500 B.C. (See R. Whitelaw, "Time, Life and History in the Light of 15,000 Radiocarbon Dates," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, 7 (1970):56.) EC194.jpg (188981 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE MASS SPECTROMETER—Here is a technique that you are not likely to hear much about. The problem for evolutionists is that it consistently yields dates that are too low. Yet if its conclusions were accepted, ALL fossils, ALL coal, ALL petroleum, and ALL hominid (ancient man) bones would be dated less than 5000 years in the past! The mass spectrometer technique is fairly new, and the equipment is quite expensive. Unfortunately, when working with radiocarbon, the results will still be skewed (dates will appear to be too ancient) because the atmosphere in ancient times had a different amount of carbon 14 than it now has. (The mass spectrometer is discussed again in chapter 13, Ancient Man.) LESSON FROM JARMO—Jarmo was an ancient village that was inhabited for not over 500 years. It was discovered in northeast Iraq. Eleven different C-14 tests were made there, and dates with a 6000-year spread were tallied up! A fundamental scientific principle is that a correct method will give the same result when repeated; if it cannot do this, it is not scientific. CONCLUSION—As with the other methods of non-historical dating, we find that radiocarbon dating is also highly inaccurate. "The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious . . It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted."—*R.E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," in Anthropological Journal of Canada, March 3, 1981, p. 9. Since Darwin’s seminal work was called The Origin of Species one might reasonably suppose that his theory had explained this central aspect of evolution or at least made a shot at it, even if it had not resolved the larger issues we have discussed up to now. Curiously enough, this is not the case. As Professor Ernst Mayr of Harvard, the doyen [senior member] of species studies, once remarked, the ‘book called The Origin of Species is not really on that subject,’ while his colleague Professor Simpson admits: ‘Darwin failed to solve the problem indicated by the title of his work.’ "You may be surprised to hear that the origin of species remains just as much a mystery today, despite the efforts of thousands of biologists. The topic has been the main focus of attention and is beset by endless controversies."—*Gordon R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140. One of the greatest scientists of the last 200 years said this about the possibility of life making itself out of water and mud: "Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232. *Fred Hoyle wrote in the November 19, 1981 issue of New Scientist, that there are 2000 complex enzymes required for a living organism,—yet not a single one of these could have been formed on earth by shuffling processes in even 20 billion years! SPONTANEOUS GENERATION—(*2/9 Spontaneous Generation*) The theory of life from non-living things is the error of "spontaneous generation," an error which was not fully eliminated until more than a century ago. Modern evolutionists believe in and teach spontaneous generation, which they now call biopoiesis, so students will not recognize that they are still advocating spontaneous generation. (Earlier in the twentieth century, it was called abiogenesis.) "Biogenesis is a term in biology that is derived from two Greek words meaning life and birth. According to the theory of biogenesis, living things descend only from living things. They cannot develop spontaneously from nonliving materials. Until comparatively recent times, scientists believed that certain tiny forms of life, such as bacteria, arose spontaneously from non-living substances."—*"Biogenesis," World Book Encyclopedia, p. B-242 (1972 edition). Spontaneous generation was believed by many scientists, prior to the careful experiments of Spallanzani (1780), and Pasteur (1860), which totally disproved that foolish idea. People thought that fruit flies spontaneously came forth from fruit, geese from barnacles, mice from dirty clothes, and bees from dead calves. Even Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, *Hegel, and *Shilling believed it, but that did not make it right. Great people believing an error does not make the error truth. Evolution teaches spontaneous generation. Think about that for a moment. We’re returning to the Dark Ages! "Pasteur’s demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . . "They [today’s scientists] are back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very slowly."—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639. In the presence of oxygen, these chemicals leave the reduced (or chemical combination) state and break down to individual chemicals again. "The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33. "With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65. For more information on how nothing can just appear from nothing, and how chemicals actually work, please go to: http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-7a.htm PROTEIN SYNTHESIS—Protein is a basic constituent of all life forms. It is composed of amino acids. There are 20 essential amino acids, none of which can produce the others. How were these made? How could they make themselves? First, let us examine the simplest amino acid: glycine. *Hull figured out that, due to inadequate chemicals and reaction problems, even glycine could not form by chance. There was only a 10-27 (minus 27) concentration of the materials needed to make it. If one glycine molecule was formed, it would have to hunt through 1029 other molecules in the ocean before finding another glycine to link up with! This would be equivalent to finding one person in a crowd that is 100,000,000,000,000,000,000 times larger than all the people on earth! But what about the other nineteen amino acids? Checking out the others, *Hull found that it was even less possible for the other 19 amino acids to form. The concentration needed for glucose, for example, would be 10134. That is an extremely high improbability! (*D. Hull, "Thermodynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Generation," in Nature, 186, 1960, pp. 693-694). A research team, at Barlian University in Israel, said that this complication would make the successful formation of just one protein totally impossible, mathematically. It would be 1 chance in 10157. They concluded that no proteins were ever produced by chance on this earth. Why can't we see it's just impossible? Evolutionists bank on the fact that, somehow, somewhere, in some way,—a small bit of inorganic matter formed some amino acids. Yet even if such an impossible event could have happened,—it would rapidly have disintegrated away! "In the vast majority of processes in which we are interested, the point of equilibrium lies far over toward the side of dissolution. That is to say, spontaneous dissolution [automatic self-destruct process] is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis [accidental put-together process] . . The situation we must face is that of patient Penelope waiting for Odysseus, yet much worse: each night she undid the weaving of the proceeding day, but here a night could readily undo the work of a year or a century."— *G. Wald, "The Origin of Life," in The Physics and Chemistry of Life (1955), p. 17. "At that time, the ‘free’ production of organic matter by ultraviolet light was effectively turned off and a premium was placed on alternative energy utilization mechanisms. This was a major evolutionary crisis. I find it remarkable that any organism survived it."—*Carl Sagan, The Origins, p. 253. But there is a special reason why they would prefer to avoid a reducing atmosphere: There is no evidence anywhere in nature that our planet ever had a non-oxygen atmosphere! And there is no theory that can explain how it could earlier have had a reducing (non-oxygen) atmosphere On and on it goes, one conjecture after another; always searching for the magic mixture and fairyland environment needed to make life out of nothing. "Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I determine I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself (1981), p. 153. [*Crick received a Nobel Prize for discovering the structure of DNA.] Can life be birthed in a test tube, in a lab? According to evolutionists, no: "In 1953, at the University of Chicago, Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey mixed ammonia, water vapor, hydrogen and methane to simulate Earth’s early atmosphere, then crackled lightning-like electrical sparks through it . . "Unfortunately, as Margolis admits, ‘no cell has yet crawled out of a test tube,’ and thousands of similar experiments have produced goopy organic tars, but no recognizable life. Decades of persistent failure to ‘create life’ by the ‘spark in the soup’ method (or to find such productions in nature) have caused some researchers to seek other approaches to the great enigma . . [He then discussed panspermia theories: the possibility of bacteria flying in from outer space.]"—*Richard Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 274. For more info, including Millers "famous" experiment, which did not produce any life, go here: http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-7b.htm *Stanley Miller, who first synthesized amino acids in a laboratory later stated that his own experiment could not possibly have been done by chance outside of a modern laboratory. Other scientists have agreed. A huge part of the lie of evolution is that it is possible all of this that we know can come about by nothing producing nothing... Whether done in nature, or by researchers in a high-tech laboratory, these life substances are always the result of careful organization with specific purposes by a high-level intelligence. No one tosses the chemicals into a pan in the laboratory, walks off, hoping it will produce amino acids all by itself. "Any living thing possesses an enormous amount of ‘intelligence’ . . Today, this ‘intelligence’ is called ‘information,’ but it is still the same thing . . This ‘intelligence’ is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it."—*Pierre-Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 3. A Nobel Prize laureate wrote this: "An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle."—*Francis Crick, Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88 [co-discoverer of the DNA molecule]. Another Nobel Prize laureate and, like the others, a confirmed evolutionist made this comment: "All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."—*Harold C. Urey, quoted in Christian Science Monitor, January 4, 1962, p. 4. THE MAGIC FORMULA—The formula for the evolutionary origin and development of life goes something like this: NOTHING + TIME + CHANCE = "SIMPLE" CELL ONE CELL + TIME + CHANCE = MAN Throughout inorganic nature we see randomness producing decay and inertness; we do not find it building houses and, then, installing the plumbing in them. "All the facile speculations and discussions published during the last ten to fifteen years explaining the mode of origin of life have been shown to be far too simple-minded and to bear very little weight. The problem in fact seems as far from solution as it ever was."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 68. THE EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN OF LIFE IN A NUTSHELL—The origin of life by random means is an impossibility. Only evolutionists and the authors of children’s fairy tales say otherwise. UTTER COMPLEXITY—In order to form a protein, the DNA molecule has to direct the placement of amino acids in a certain specific order in a molecule made up of hundreds of thousands of units. For each position, it must choose the correct amino acid from some twenty different amino acids. DNA itself is made up of only four different building blocks (A, G, C, and T). These are arranged in basic code units of three factors per unit (A-C-C, G-T-A, etc.). This provides 64 basic code units. With them, millions of separate codes can be sequentially constructed. Each code determines one of the many millions of factors in your body, organs, brain, and all their functions. If just one code were omitted, you would be in serious trouble. AN ASTOUNDING CLAIM—The evolutionists applied their theory to the amazing discoveries about DNA—and came up with a totally astonishing claim: All the complicated DNA in each life form, and all the DNA in every other life form—made itself out of dirty water back in the beginning! There was some gravel around, along with some dirt. Nearby was some water, and overhead a lightning storm. The lightning hit the dirty water and made living creatures complete with DNA. They not only had their complete genetic code, but they were also immediately able to eat, digest food, move about, perform enzymatic and glandular functions, and all the rest. That same stroke of lightning made both a male and a female pair and their complete digestive, respiratory, and circulatory organs. It provided them with complete ability to produce offspring and they, in turn, more offspring. That same stroke of lightning also made their food, with all its own DNA, male and female pairs, etc., etc. And that, according to this children’s story, is where we all came from! But it is a story that only very little children would find believable. "Laboratory experiments show that the basic building blocks of life, the proteins and organic molecules, form pretty easily in environments that have both carbon and water."—*Star Date Radio Broadcast, January 24, 1990. For more info on what the DNA and other structures are made up of, and the complexity of them, go to: http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-8a.htm The amount of information in the genetic code is so vast that it would be impossible to put together by chance. But, in addition, there must be a means of translating it so the tissues can use the code. "Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidences could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle surely would have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation."—*C. Haskins, "Advances and Challenges in Science" in American Scientist 59 (1971), pp. 298. "The information content of amino acid sequences cannot increase until a genetic code with an adapter function has appeared. Nothing which even vaguely resembles a code exists in the physio-chemical world. One must conclude that no valid scientific explanation of the origin of life exists at present."—*H. Yockey, "Self Organization Origin of Life Scenarios and Information Theory," in Journal of Theoretical Biology 91 (1981), p. 13. If university-trained scientists, working in multimillion-dollar equipped and stocked laboratories, cannot make DNA and RNA, how can random action of sand and dirty water produce it in the beginning? For the basis for this statement please go to: http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-8a.htm There seems to be an extreme bias among biologists that seems to set the tone that's hard to overcome: "To involve purpose is in the eyes of biologists the ultimate scientific sin . . The revulsion which biologists feel to the thought that purpose might have a place in the structure of biology is therefore revulsion to the concept that biology might have a connection to an intelligence higher than our own."—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 32. This is a closed mind, not one open to the truths of science, if they point to a creator who has purpose. According to math calculations, can DNA just happen: "Using a little algebra (logarithms) we can see that 41000 is equivalent to 10600. Ten multiplied by itself 600 times gives the figure 10 followed by 600 zeros! This number is completely beyond our comprehension."—*Frank Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, pp. 336-338. One does not extract life from pebbles, dirt, water, or a lightning bolt. Lightning destroys life; it does not make it. GOLEY’S MACHINE—A communications engineer tried to figure out the odds for bringing a non-living organism with few parts (only 1500) up to the point of being able to reproduce itself. "Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for all of its parts, and capable of assembling from those parts a second machine just like itself."—*Marcel J.E. Goley, "Reflections of a Communications Engineer," in Analytical Chemistry, June 1961, p. 23. Far smaller are all the words in all the books ever published. They would only amount to 1020, and that would be equivalent to only 66 of those 1,500 50-50 choices all made correctly in succession! "When for practical purposes the condition of infinite time and matter has to be invoked [in order to make evolution succeed], the concept of probability [possibility of its occurrence] is annulled. By such logic we can prove anything, such as that no matter how complex, everything will repeat itself, exactly and innumerably."—*P.T. Mora, "The Folly of Probability," in *S.W. Fox (ed.), The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices (1965), p. 45. Science points to a biochemical creation: "Many researchers have attempted to find plausible natural conditions under which L-amino acids would preferentially accumulate over their D-counterparts, but all such attempts have failed. Until this crucial problem is solved, no one can say that we have found a naturalistic explanation for the origin of life. Instead, these isomer preferences point to biochemical creation."—Dean H. Kenyon, affidavit presented to U.S. Supreme Court, No. 85-15, 13, in "Brief of Appellants," prepared under the direction of William J. Guste, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Louisiana, October 1985, p. A-23. "The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence we can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts."— *R. Dickerson, "Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life," in Scientific American, September 1978, p. 70. ENZYMES—*Fred Hoyle wrote in New Scientist that 2,000 different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. And then he added that random shuffling processes could not form a single one of these in even 20 billion years! He then added this: "I don’t know how long it is going to be before astronomers generally recognize that the arrangement of not even one among the many thousands of biopolymers [enzymes, proteins, hormones, etc.] on which life depends could have been arrived at by natural processes here on the earth. "Astronomers will have a little difficulty in understanding this because they will be assured by biologists that it is not so; the biologists having been assured in their turn by others that it is not so. The ‘others’ are a group of persons [the evolutionary theoreticians] who believe, quite openly, in mathematical miracles. "They advocate the belief that, tucked away in nature outside of normal physics, there is a law which performs miracles (provided the miracles are in the aid of biology). This curious situation sits oddly on a profession that for long has been dedicated to coming up with logical explanations . . The modern miracle workers are always found to be living in the twilight fringes of [the two laws of] thermodynamics."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Big Bang in Astronomy," in New Scientist, November 19, 1981, pp. 521-527. THE DNA LANGUAGE—Another researcher, *M. Eden, in attendance at the Wistar Institute, said that the code within the DNA molecule is actually in a structured form, like letters and words in a language. Like them, the DNA code is structured in a certain sequence, and only because of the sequence can the code have meaning. *Eden then goes on and explains that DNA, like other languages, cannot be tinkered with by random variational changes; if that is done, the result will always be confusion! "No currently existing formal language can tolerate random changes in the symbol sequences which express its sentences. Meaning is invariably destroyed."—*M. Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory," in op. cit., p. 11. And yet evolutionary theory teaches that DNA and all life appeared by chance, and then evolved through random changes within the DNA! Time and chance do not produce life according to evolutionists: "Time is no help. Biomolecules outside a living system tend to degrade with time, not build up. In most cases, a few days is all they would last. Time decomposes complex systems. If a large ‘word’ (a protein) or even a paragraph is generated by chance, time will operate to degrade it. The more time you allow, the less chance there is that fragmentary ‘sense’ will survive the chemical maelstrom of matter."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 233. "So the simultaneous formation of two or more molecules of any given enzyme purely by chance is fantastically improbable."—*W. Thorpe, "Reductionism in Biology," in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology (1974), p. 117. Variation within a species is not evolution. There are dozens of varieties of dogs, cats, and pigeons. But no new species have been produced. They are still dogs, cats, and pigeons. When *Harrison Matthews wrote the introduction for the 1971 edition of *Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, he denied the possibility of evolution in several respects, and made this accurate observation about the peppered moth: "The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia."—*Harrison Matthews, "Introduction," to Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi. Within 14 years after writing Origin of the Species, *Darwin confessed to a friend: "In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations [faith and theorizing] . . When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed . . nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork for the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not."—*Charles Darwin, letter to Jeremy Bentham, in Francis Darwin (ed.), Charles Darwin, Life & Letters, Vol. 3, p. 25. "Domestic and wild animals have produced interesting and sometimes useful (to man) hybrids. Successful crosses have been made between cattle and bison (‘beefalo’), turkeys and chickens (‘turkens’) and horses and zebras. Usually, the male offspring of these unions are sterile, and the females are either sterile, show reduced fertility or produce offspring that do not live long."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 231. DNA, THE BARRIER—Genetic scientists tell us that all variation occurs in living things only within each type, and never from one type to another. It is the complicated DNA code within each plant and animal type that erects the great wall, which cannot be crossed. There is no evidence that at any time, in all the history of the world, even one new true species has formed from other species. Yet evolutionary teachings require that such dramatic new changes would have had to occur thousands and thousands of times. *Charles Darwin had a difficult time trying to figure out his theory, and frequently admitted in his books that it appeared impossible. He said that just to think about the eye and how it could possibly have been produced by natural selection was enough to make him ill. He also said this: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."—*Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1909 Harvard Classics edition), p. 190. "The eye appears to have been designed; no designer of telescopes could have done better."—*Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe (1981), p. 98. "Evolution cannot be described as a process of adaptation because all organisms are already adapted . . Adaptation leads to natural selection, natural selection does not necessarily lead to greater adaptation."—*Lewontin, "Adaptation," in Scientific American, September 1978. Although it occurs all the time within species, natural selection does not explain the origin of species or traits, but only their preservation and more careful use. *Lewontin is a confirmed evolutionist, but he recognizes that natural selection could not possibly produce evolution: " ‘Natural selection operates essentially to enable the organisms to maintain their state of adaptation rather than to improve it.’ ‘Natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species’ chances of survival, but simply enables it to track, or keep up with, the constantly changing environment.’ "—*Ibid. You cannot select what is not there. If the trait is not already in the genes it cannot be selected for use or adaptation. Selecting which trait will be used (which is natural selection) is not evolution; for the trait was already at hand. NATURAL SELECTION ELIMINATES EVOLUTION—*C.H. Waddington explains that the processes of natural selection work exactly opposite to those of theorized evolution. In fact, natural selection would destroy evolutionary crossovers if they could occur! A plant or animal can be selectively bred for greater beauty, etc.; but in so doing, it has become less hardy than the wild, natural original. Variations are never quite as hardy as the original. "If by selection we concentrate the genes acting in a certain direction, and produce a sub-population which differs from the original one by greater development of some character we are interested in (such as higher milk yield or production of eggs), we almost invariably find that the sub-population has simultaneously become less fit and would be eliminated by natural selection."—*C. H. Waddington, "The Resistance to Evolutionary Change," in Nature, 175 (1955) p. 51. AN UNALTERABLE LAW—There is a law existing among all living things that has no exception. The law is stated in the first book in the Bible. It is the Law of the Genesis kinds: "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind . . great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind . . the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind."—Genesis 1:12, 21, 25. KEEPING CLOSE TO THE AVERAGE—Because each species in the world operates within the definite limits of the pool of possible traits in its DNA, we should expect two effects: (1) a number of varieties can be bred, and (2) when not specially guarded, the varieties will tend to move back toward the average. If everything keeps moving back toward the average, there can be no evolution. The principle of regression toward the mean rules out evolution. Variations may and do occur within species, but there will be no moving out from the species to form different species. "Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean [average]."—*Roger Lewin, "Evolutionary Theory Under Fire," in Science, November 21, 1980, p. 884. BUMPUS’ SPARROWS—Hermon Bumpus was a zoologist at Brown University. During the winter of 1898, he, by accident, produced one of the only field experiments in survival by natural selection. One very cold morning, in Providence, Rhode Island, he found 136 stunned house sparrows on the ground. Bringing them to his laboratory, he cared for them all, and 72 revived while 64 died. He then weighed them and made careful measurements (length, wingspan, beak, head, humerus, femur, skull, etc.) of each of the 136. "Comparing the statistics of the two groups, he found the measurements of the birds that survived were closer to the mean of the group than were those of the birds that died. This type of mortality, where extremes are eliminated, is referred to as balanced phenotype, or stabilizing selection . . Even today, ‘Bumpus’ Sparrows continue to be quoted in about five published scientific articles every year."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 61. In "Bumpus’ Sparrows" we find yet another evidence of the fact that those creatures which are the closest to the average of each species are the most hardy. Yet, if that is true, then it would lock each species all the more away from veering off and changing into another species. "Of one thing, however, I am certain, and that is that ‘natural selection’ affords no explanation of mimicry or of any other form of evolution. It means nothing more than ‘the survivors survive.’ Why do certain individuals survive? Because they are the fittest. How do we know they are the fittest? Because they survive."—*E.W. MacBride, Nature, May 11, 1929, p. 713. Mutations are key in evolution. "The complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis, pp. 183 and 205. "It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*F.J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3. NOT HELPFUL—Evolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure. "But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35. "A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41. Elsewhere in the same book, he admitted this: "One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, intact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism."—*Julian Huxley, op. cit., p. 137. NOT ONCE—Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another! Read the above paragraph over a couple times. If, after millions of fruit-fly mutation experiments, scientists have never found one helpful and non-weakening mutation that had permanent effects in offspring—then how could mutations result in worthwhile evolution? "Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?"—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, p. 102. "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution (1971), pp. 24-25. "If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak,—namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze."—*Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, p. 174. "An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.] "We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20. Referring to the harmful effects of mutations, *Bullock concludes: "Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization."—*Helen Bullock, "Crusade to Unravel Life’s Mystery," The Toronto Star, December 19, 1981, p. A13. Trying to accomplish evolution with random, accidental, harmful mutations is like trying to improve a television set by throwing rocks at it (although I will admit that may be one of the best ways to improve the benefit you receive from your television set). *H.J. Muller won a Nobel prize for his work in genetics and mutations. In his time, he was considered a world leader in genetics research. Here is how he describes the problem: "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11(1955), p. 331. "The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103. "Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation."—*Edouard Kellenberger, "The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus," in Scientific American, December 1966, p. 32. AGAINST ALL LAW—After spending years studying mutations, *Michael Denton, an Australian research geneticist, finalized on the matter this way: "If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms. "The fact that systems [such as advanced computers], in every way analogous to living organisms, cannot undergo evolution by pure trial and error [by mutation and natural selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?"—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 342. In other words, evolution can't actually happen. SYNTROPY—This principle was mentioned in the chapter on Natural Selection; it belongs here also. *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi is a brilliant Hungarian scientist who has won two Nobel Prizes (1937 and 1955) for his research. In 1977, he developed a theory which he called syntropy. *Szent-Gyorgyi points out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it was already complete with all of its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. This principle rules out the possibility of evolution arising by the accidental effects of natural selection or the chance results of mutations. It is an important point. "In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of ‘survival of the fittest’ would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi’s Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337. It is only the minor mutational changes which harm one’s descendants. The major ones kill the organism outright or rather quickly annihilate its offspring! "One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant, but this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as a major ones, and occur much more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20. "The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading. Mutations with small effects do have some probability of spreading and as a rule the chances are better the smaller the effect."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory," chapter 2; in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80. "Such an assumption [that little mutations here and there can gradually, over several generations, produce a new species] is violently opposed by the majority of geneticists, who claim that the facts found on the subspecific level must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations."—*Richard Goldschmidt, in American Scientist (1952), p. 94. Here is how two scientists describe the problem: "Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129. "Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cogwheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cogwheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axles. To get a better watch all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977), [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts]. "Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence . . Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence; ‘random mutations,’ to use the evolutionist’s favorite expression."—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205. Here is how one scientist explains the problem: "One should remember that an increase in complexity is what evolution is all about. It is not conceived as causing a change which continues to maintain the same level of complexity, nor does it mean a change which might bring about a decrease in complexity. Only an increase in complexity qualifies. "Radiations from natural sources enter the body in a hit-or-miss fashion. That is, they are completely random in the dispersed fashion with which they strike. Chemical mutagens also behave in an indiscriminate manner in causing chemical change. It is hard to see how either can cause improvements. With either radiations or mutagens, it would be something like taking a rifle and shooting haphazardly into an automobile and expecting thereby to create a better performing vehicle, and one that shows an advance in the state-of-the-art for cars. "The question is, then, can random sources of energy as represented by radiations or mutagenic chemicals, upon reacting with the genes, cause body changes which would result in a new species?"—Lester McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 51. (1) For every visible mutation, there are 20 lethal ones which are invisible! (2) Even more frequent than the lethal mutations would be the ones that damage but do not kill. "Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones."—*A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th Edition (1977), p. 356. Never does the mutated offspring have more strength than the unmutated (or less mutated) parent. "There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species . . It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations."—*N. Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Synthetic Speciation) (1953), p. 1157 [italics his]. "No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."—*Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88. SICKLE-CELL ANEMIA—Evolutionists point to sickle-cell anemia as the outstanding example of beneficial evolutionary change through mutation. "Actually, only three evolutionists have ever given me an example of a beneficial mutation. It was the same example all three times: sickle-cell anemia . . Sickle-cell anemia is often given as an example of a favorable mutation, because people carrying sickle-cell hemoglobin in their red blood cells are resistant to malaria. But the price for this protection is high: 25 percent of the children of carriers will probably die of the anemia, and another 25 percent are subject to malaria. "The gene will automatically be selected when the death rate from malaria is high, but evolutionists themselves admit that the short time advantages produce ‘mischievous results’ detrimental to long-term survival."—Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 103, 104. Actual statistics reveal that the death rate from malaria for normal people in certain parts of Africa is over 30 percent while only 25 percent of carriers of sickle-cell anemia are likely to contract it. But in return for the advantage, 25 percent of their children will die of this serious anemia. "The fruit fly has long been the favorite object of mutation experiments because of its fast gestation period (twelve days). X-rays have been used to increase the mutation rate in the fruit fly by 15,000 percent. All in all, scientists have been able to "catalyze the fruit fly evolutionary process such that what has been seen to occur in Drosophila is the equivalent of many millions of years of normal mutations and evolution."—*Jeremy Rifkin, Algeny (1983), p. 134. After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none changes the fruit fly into a different species. "Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caulery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119. "Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61. "It is now well established that the development of increased ability in insects to survive exposure is not induced directly by the insecticides themselves. These chemicals do not cause the genetic changes in insects [therefore they are not mutation-inducing agents]; they serve only as selective agents, eliminating the more susceptible insects and enabling the more tolerant survivors to increase and fill the void created by the destruction of susceptible individuals."—*C.P. Georghiou, et al., "Housefly Resistance to lnsecticides," in California Agriculture, 19:8-10. *Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California had spent most of his adult life trying to prove that fruit flies could change into new species, but without success. "After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."—*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33. After realizing Darwin's natural selection & mutations don't work, they came up with another theory:*Goldschmidt was a lifelong geneticist—and found no evidence that mutations could produce evolution. *Gould was a lifelong paleontologist, and found that there was no fossil evidence for evolution from one species to another. All the fossils were distinct species, with no halfway species included. All the evidence from the world around us, and the fossil record from the past, points to separate, distinct species, with no transitional species linking them. In his May 1977 article, *Gould opened up this entire problem—and said that "hopeful monsters" are the only possible answer: entirely new species, which were suddenly born from totally different creatures! One day a lizard laid an egg and a beaver hatched out of it. Declaring that "we never see the processes we profess to study," *Gould announced his new position, which he described by an awesome new name: "punctuated equilibrium." By this term he means that for 50,000 years or so, there will be no change (an "equilibrium" without any evolution). And then, suddenly (in a very rare "punctuation") and by total chance, two totally different life forms will emerge. *Mayr, another well-known evolutionist, calls these monsters not "hopeful," but "hopeless." "The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation . . is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that ‘they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through selection.’ Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flyer. Indeed, having all the equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all . . To believe that such a drastic mutation would ‘produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, ‘is equivalent to believing in miracles."—*E. Mayr, "Populations" in Species and Evolution (1970), p. 253. Much more info here: http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-10b.htm Here are but two simple examples, which could never be produced by mutations—with or without the help of so-called "natural selection," which is nothing more than random variations within a species: "The bombardier beetle does appear to be unique in the animal kingdom. Its defense system is extraordinarily intricate, a cross between tear gas and a tommy gun. "When the beetle senses danger, it internally mixes enzymes contained in one body chamber with concentrated solutions of some rather harmless compounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, confined to a second chamber. This generates a noxious spray of caustic benzoquinones, which explodes from its body at a boiling 212o F. "What is more, the fluid is pumped through twin rear nozzles, which can be rotated, like a B-17’s gun turret, to hit a hungry ant or frog with a bull’s eye accuracy."—*Time, February 25, 1985, p. 70. "The yucca moth is specifically adapted to the yucca plant and depends on it throughout its life cycle. The yucca plant in turn is adapted to be fertilized by this insect and by no other. The female moth collects a ball of pollen from several flowers, then finds a flower suitable for ovipositing. After depositing her egg in the soft tissue of the ovary, by means of a lance-like ovipositor, she pollinates the flower by pushing the pollen to the bottom of the funnel-shaped opening of the pistil. This permits the larva to feed on some of the developing seeds in the non-parasitized sectors of the fruit to permit the yucca plant abundant reproduction. This perfection of the nuptial adaptation of flower and moth is indeed admirable. Yet, in addition to this pollination and egg-laying relationship, there are numerous other adaptations, such as the emergence of the moths in early summer some ten months after pupation, precisely at the time when the yucca plants are in flower. Could blind chance have achieved such perfection?"—*Ernst Mayr, "Accident or Design, The Paradox of Evolution," in The Evolution of Living Organisms (1962), pp. 1, 3. "It is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that the famous yucca moth case could result from random mutations."—*Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (1942), p. 296. SCIENTISTS SAY IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC—Elsewhere, *Patterson again reiterated the past occurrence of evolution, and agreed with *Karl Popper (the leading evolutionist philosopher of the twentieth century) that the theory was "metaphysical" and not "scientific." They tell the public that evolution is "scientific," but among themselves, they admit it is something quite different. "So, at present, we are left with neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed mainly by natural selection, with random contributions from genetic drift, and perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the theory is not scientific by Popper’s standards. Indeed, Popper calls the theory of evolution not a scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme."—*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), p. 149. "Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327. "Not one change of species into another is on record . . we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."—*Charles Darwin, My Life and Letters. More biologists would agree with Professor Hampton Carson of Washington University, St. Louis, when he says that speciation is ‘a major unsolved problem of evolutionary biology.’ "—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 141. "In the last thirty years or so speciation has emerged as the major unsolved problem. The British geneticist, William Bateson, was the first to focus attention on the question. In 1922 he wrote: ‘In dim outline evolution is evident enough. But that particular and essential bit of the theory of evolution which is concerned with the origin and nature of species remains utterly mysterious.’ Sixty years later we are if anything worse off, research having only revealed complexity within complexity."—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 140. "Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind . . And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind."—Genesis 1:11, 12. MICRO- VS. MACROEVOLUTION—(*#4/6 Micro and Macro*) Evolutionists point to changes WITHIN the species and call that "microevolution," and then proceed to tell us that such sub-species changes prove that theorized changes ACROSS species (which they term "macroevolution") must also be occurring. But random gene shuffling within the species only produces new varieties and breeds. The DNA code barrier is not penetrated. New plant varieties and animal breeds never cross the species barrier. New varieties and new breeds are not evolution; they are only variation within the already existing species. There is no such thing as "microevolution." Changes within the true species are not evolution. CARL LINNAEUS—Carl von Linne (1707-1778) spent his adult life as a teacher at the University of Uppsala. At the age of 50, he latinized his name to "Carolus Linnaeus." The classification system of plants and animals developed by Linnaeus was to become the standard used today. He published it in his book, Systema Naturae, in 1735. Linnaeus came to two definite conclusions: (1) Species were, for the most part, the equivalent of the "Genesis kind." (2) There had been no change across the basic categories—now or earlier. As a result of his studies, Linnaeus arrived at a firm belief in Special Creation and the fixity of species. He said, "We reckon as many species as issued in pairs from the hands of the Creator" (quoted in *H.F. Osborne, From the Greeks to Darwin, 1929, p. 187). "When zoologists examined a platypus for the first time, some suspected a hoax, thinking that parts of different animals had been sewn together. The platypus has the fur of an otter, the tail of a beaver, the bill and feet of a duck, and the venomous spurs of a fighting gamecock. Although the platypus is a mammal, it lays eggs and does not have nipples (milk oozes out of pore openings in the abdomen)."—*Asimov’s Book of Facts (1979), p. 135. "There is no evidence of the origin of a hybrid between man and any other mammal."—*Edward Colin, Elements of Genetics, 1946, pp. 222-223. One careful researcher (Frank Marsh) spent years tracking down every report of crosses above that of true species. Each time he found them to be hoaxes. One instance was of bird feathers sewn to a stuffed animal skin. It made good copy for a newspaper article, so it was printed. Darwin did not know genetics, it was being discovered at the same time he was writing his book:MENDELIAN GENETICS—It has been said that the foundations of evolutionary theory were laid by the work of *Charles Darwin (1809-1882), but that the principles which Gregor Mendel (1822-1884) discovered, as he worked with garden peas at about the same time that Darwin was writing his book, were the means of abolishing that theory. LIMITS OF VARIABILITY—This is a crucial factor. All evolutionary theory pivots on whether or not there are such limits on how far you can breed differences in a species. Can one species change into another one? If there are definite limits forbidding it, then evolution cannot occur. An evolutionary encyclopedia provides us with a brief overview of the history of theory and "pure-line research" into limits of variability: "Alfred Russell Wallace and Charles Darwin had insisted that through gradual, continuous change, species could (in Wallace’s phrase) ‘depart indefinitely from the original type.’ Around 1900 came the first direct test of that proposition: the ‘pure line research’ of Wilhelm Ludwig Johannsen (1857-1927). What would happen, Johannsen wondered, if the largest members of a population were always bred with the largest, and the smallest with the smallest? How big or how small would they continue to get after a few generations? Would they ‘depart indefinitely’ from the original type, or are there built-in limits and constraints? "Experimenting on self-fertilizing beans, Johannsen selected and bred the extremes in sizes over several generations. But instead of a steady, continuous growth or shrinkage as Darwin’s theory seemed to predict, he produced two stabilized populations (or ‘pure lines’) of large and small beans. After a few generations, they had reached a specific size and remained there, unable to vary further in either direction. Continued selection had no effect. "Johannsen’s work stimulated many others to conduct similar experiments. One of the earliest was Herbert Spencer Jennings (1868-1947) of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, the world authority on the behavior of microscopic organisms. He selected for body size in Paramecium and found that after a few generations selection had no effect. One simply cannot breed a paramecium the size of a baseball. Even after hundreds of generations, his pure lines remained constrained within fixed limits, ‘as unyielding as iron.’ "Another pioneer in pure line research was Raymond Pearl (1879-1940), who experimented with chickens at the Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. Pearl took up the problem . . [to] evolve a hen that lays eggs all day long. "He found you could breed some super-layers, but an absolute limit was soon reached . . In fact, Pearl produced some evidence indicating that production might actually be increased by relaxing selection—by breeding from ‘lower than maximum’ producers."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 376. Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)—but no exit through that wall. "Darwin’s gradualism was bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection was useless."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 46. "It must be strongly emphasized, also, that in all cases these specialized breeds possess reduced viability; that is, their basic ability to survive has been weakened. Domesticated plants and animals do not compete well with the original, or wild type . . They survive only because they are maintained in an environment which is free from their natural enemies, food supplies are abundant, and other conditions are carefully regulated."—Duane Gish, Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 34. "Our domesticated animals and plants are perhaps the best demonstration of the effects of this principle. The improvements that have been made by selection in these have clearly been accompanied by a reduction of fitness for life under natural conditions, and only the fact that domesticated animals and plants do not live under natural conditions has allowed these improvements to be made."—*O.S. Falconer, introduction to Quantitative Genetics (1960), p. 186. GENE DEPLETION—The scientific name for this loss of fitness through adaptation is gene depletion. According to this principle, selective breeding always weakens a species—and never strengthens it. "[The original species came into existence] with rich potential for genetic variation into races, breeds, hybrids, etc. But so far from developing into new kinds, or even improving existing kinds, such variations are always characterized by intrinsic genetic weakness of individuals, in accordance with the outworking of the second law of thermodynamics through gene depletion and the accumulation of harmful mutations. Thus, the changes that occur in living things through the passage of time are always within strict boundary lines."—John C. Whitcomb, The Early Earth (1986), p. 94. A Dutch zoologist, *J.J. Duyvene de Wit, explains that if man were descended from animal ancestors, "man should possess a smaller gene-potential than his animal ancestors"! (*J.J. Duyvene de Wit, A New Critique of the Transformist Principle in Evolutionary Biology, 1965, pp. 56, 57). Contrary to what the evolutionists claim, selective breeding can provide no evidence of evolution, since it is intelligent, carefully planned activity; whereas evolution, by definition, is random occurrences. Selective breeding narrows the genetic pool; although it may have produced a nicer-appearing rose, at the same time it weakened the rose plant that grew that rose. Selective breeding may improve a selected trait, but tends to weaken the whole organism. Because of this weakening factor, national and international organizations are now collecting and storing "seed banks" of primitive seed. It is feared that diseases may eventually wipe out our specialized crops, and we need to be able to go back and replenish from the originals: rice, corn, tomatoes, etc. "It is an irony of evolutionary genetics that, although it is a fusion of Mendelism and Darwinism, it has made no direct contribution to what Darwin obviously saw as the fundamental problem: the origin of species."—*Richard Lewontin, Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change (1974), p. 159. "The leading workers in this field have confessed, more or less reluctantly, that population genetics contributes very little to evolutionary theory . . If the leading authorities on population genetics confess to this dismal lack of achievement and even chuckle about it, it is altogether fitting and proper for the rank and file to take them at their word. Therefore it seems to follow that there is no need to teach population genetics."—*E. Saiff and *N. Macbeth, "Population Genetics and Evolutionary Theory" in Tuatara 26 (1983), pp. 71-72. Remember, every * by someones name means they are an evolutionist. So most of these quotes, saying evolutions is impossible, are themselves evolutionists. *Frank Rhodes (Evolution, 1974, p. 75) explains that all that "genetic drift" refers to is changes in a "sub-species" of a plant or animal (or in a "race," which is a sub-species among human beings). Even *Rhodes recognizes that genetic drift provides no evidence of change from one species to another. All the drift has been found to be within species and never across them. "No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it."—*Colin Patterson, "Cladistics," in BBC Radio Interview, March 4, 1982. "Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless."—*Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Erratic Pace," in Natural History, April 1980, p. 144. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology [the study of fossils] does not provide them."—*David Kitts, "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory" in Evolution, September 1974, p. 467. But we find there are absolutely no transitional forms to fill the gaps. In desperation, evolutionists have come up with an answer: "The transitions were made so slowly that they left no remains behind."—Wait a minute! How can that be? The more slowly the transitions, the larger would be the number of transitional forms that would be in the fossil strata for posterity to examine! (*Steven M. Stanley, "Macroevolution and the Fossil Record" in Evolution, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1982, p. 460). —And none other than *Charles Darwin himself agrees with us! "When we descend to details, we can prove that no species has changed [we cannot prove that a single species has changed]; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory."—*Charles Darwin, in *Francis Darwin (ed.), The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin Vol. 2 (1887), p. 210. "Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron—and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident—such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible. "To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others,—is to create questions more profound than are answered."—David Raphael Klein, "Is There a Substitute for God?" in Reader’s Digest, March 1970, p. 55. there is absolutely no indication, from the fossil record, that evolution has ever occurred on our planet! "We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology; and we shall certainly not advance matters by jumping up and down shrilling, ‘Darwin is god and I, So-and-so, am his prophet.’ "—*Errol White, Proceedings of the Linnean Society, London, 177:8 (1966). "No biologist has actually seen the origin by evolution of a major group of organisms."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Process of Organic Evolution, p. 1. [Stebbins is a geneticist.] "It remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of families, appear in the [fossil] record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*George G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution, p. 360. a great Flood,—the one described in the Bible in Genesis 6 to 9—rapidly covered the earth with water. When it did, sediments of pebbles, gravel, clay, and sand were laid down in successive strata, covering animal and plant life. Under great pressure, these sediments turned into what we today call "sedimentary rock." (Clay became shale; sand turned into sandstone; mixtures of gravel, clay and sand formed conglomerate rock.) All that mass of water-laid material successively covered millions of living creatures. The result is fossils, which today are only found in the sedimentary rock strata. When the Flood overwhelmed the world, the first to be covered were slow-moving animals, the next to be covered were somewhat larger, somewhat faster-moving animals, and so it went. Today we can dig into these rock strata and find that the lowest stratum tends to have the slowest-moving creatures; above them are faster ones. Evolutionist scientists declare these lowest strata are many millions of years old (570 million for the oldest, the Cambrian), and the topmost to be the most recent (the Pliocene at 10 million, and the Pleistocene at 2 million years). But, in actuality, we will discover that the evidence indicates that all the sedimentary strata with their hoards of fossils were laid down within a very short time. "The adequacy of the fossil record for conclusive evidence is supported by the observation that 79.1 percent of the living families of terrestrial vertebrates have been found as fossils (87.7 percent if birds are included)."—R.H. Brown, "The Great Twentieth-Century Myth," in Origins, January 1986, p. 40. "Over ten thousand fossil species of insects have been identified, over thirty thousand species of spiders, and similar numbers for many sea-living creatures. Yet so far the evidence for step-by-step changes leading to major evolutionary transitions looks extremely thin. The supposed transition from wingless to winged insects still has to found, as has the transition between the two main types of winged insects, the paleoptera (mayflies, dragonflies) and the neoptera (ordinary flies, beetles, ants, bees)."—*Fred Hoyle, "The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution," 1983, p. 43. 150 YEARS OF COLLECTED EVIDENCE—In spite of such an immense amount of fossil evidence, *Heribert-Nilsson of Lund University in Sweden, after 40 years of study in paleontology and botany, said the deficiencies—the missing links—will never be found. "It is not even possible to make a caricature [hazy sketch] of an evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that . . the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real; they will never be filled."—*N. Heribert-Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (The Synthetic Origin of Species), 1953, p. 1212. More than a century ago, enough evidence had been gathered from the study of fossils that it was already clear that the fossil gaps between Genesis kinds was unfillable. Even *Charles Darwin admitted the problem in his book. ". . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution]."—*Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in *David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," in Field Museum Bulletin, January 1979. Sunderland, quoted above, said "Our museums now are filled with over 100 million fossils of 250,000 different species." Here, in two brief paragraphs, is a clear description of the enormity of this missing link problem: "The time required for one of these invertebrates to evolve into the vertebrates, or fishes, has been estimated at about 100 million years, and it is believed that the evolution of the fish into an amphibian required about 30 million years. The essence of the new Darwinian view is the slow gradual evolution of one plant or animal into another by the gradual accumulation of micro-mutations through natural selection of favored variants. "If this view of evolution is true, the fossil record should produce an enormous number of transitional forms. Natural history museums should be overflowing with undoubted intermediate forms. About 250,000 fossil species have been collected and classified. These fossils have been collected at random from rocks that are supposed to represent all of the geological periods of earth’s history. Applying evolution theory and the laws of probability, most of these 250,000 species should represent transitional forms. Thus, if evolution is true, there should be no doubt, question, or debate as to the fact of evolution."—Duane T. Gish, "The Origin of Mammals" in Creation: the Cutting Edge (1982), p. 76. The evidence supports the information given in the oldest extant book in the world: the book of Genesis. Fossil dating is crucial to their entire theoretical house of cards. But if rocks cannot be dated by most of the fossils they contain,—how are the rocks dated? ROCKS ARE DATED BY INDEX FOSSILS—(*#5/6 Index Fossils*) The strata are dated by what the evolutionists call "index fossils." In each stratum there are a few fossils which are not observed quite as often in the other strata. As a pretext, these are the fossils which are used to "date" that stratum and all the other fossils within it! "Most of the species of maidenhair are extinct; indeed they served as index fossils for their strata until one was found alive." "The youngest fossil coelacanth is about sixty million years old. Since one was rediscovered off Madagascar, they are no longer claimed as ‘index fossils’—fossils which tell you that all other fossils in that layer are the same ripe old age."—Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 186, 198. Darwinists theorize which animals came first—and when they appeared on the scene. And then they date the rocks according to their theory—not according to the wide mixture of fossil creatures in it—but by assigning dates—based on their theory—to certain "index" fossils. It was the evolutionary theory that was used to date the fossils; it was not the strata and it was not "index fossils." "Vertebrate paleontologists have relied upon ‘stage of evolution’ as the criterion for determining the chronologic relationships of faunas. Before establishment of physical dates, evolutionary progression was the best method for dating fossiliferous strata."—*J.F. Evernden, *O.E. Savage, *G.H. Curtis, and *G.T. James, "K/A Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America," in American Journal of Science, February 1964, p. 166. "Fossiliferous strata" means fossil-bearing strata. Keep in mind that only the sedimentary rocks have fossils, for they were the sediments laid down at the time of the Flood, which hardened under pressure and dried into rock. You will find no fossils in granite, basalt, etc. "Because of the sterility of its concepts, historical geology, which includes paleontology [the study of fossils] and stratigraphy [the study of rock strata], has become static and unreproductive. Current methods of delimiting intervals of time, which are the fundamental units of historical geology, and of establishing chronology are of dubious validity. Worse than that, the criteria of correlation—the attempt to equate in time, or synchronize, the geological history of one area with that of another—are logically vulnerable. The findings of historical geology are suspect because the principles upon which they are based are either inadequate, in which case they should be reformulated, or false, in which case they should be discarded. Most of us [geologists] refuse to discard or reformulate, and the result is the present deplorable state of our discipline."—*Robin S. Allen, "Geological Correlation and Paleoecology," Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, January 1984, p. 2. CIRCULAR REASONING—(*#6/10 Circular Reasoning*) When we examine it, we find that the strata-dating theory is based on circular reasoning. "Circular reasoning" is a method of false logic, by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this." It is also called "reasoning in a circle." Over a hundred years ago, it was described by the phrase, circulus in probando, which is Latin for "a circle in a proof." There are several types of circular reasoning found in support of evolutionary theory. One of these is the geological dating position that "fossils are dated by the type of stratum they are in while at the same time the stratum is dated by the fossils found in it." An alternative evolutionary statement is that "the fossils and rocks are interpreted by the theory of evolution, and the theory is proven by the interpretation given to the fossils and rocks." Evolutionists (1) use their theory of rock strata to date the fossils, (2) and then use their theory of fossils to date the rock strata! A number of scientists have commented on this problem of circularity. "The charge that the construction of the geologic scale involves circularity has a certain amount of validity."—*David M. Raup, "Geology and Creationism," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, March 1983, p. 21. "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism."—*J.E. O’Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism and Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, January 1976, p. 48. "Are the authorities maintaining, on the one hand, that evolution is documented by geology and on the other hand, that geology is documented by evolution? Isn’t this a circular argument?"—*Larry Azar, "Biologists, Help!" BioScience, November 1978, p. 714. The professor of paleobiology at Kansas State University wrote this: "Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution, because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."—*Ronald R. West, "Paleontology and Uniformitarianism," in Compass, May 1968, p. 216. *Niles Eldredge, head of the Paleontology Department at the American Museum of Natural History, in Chicago, made this comment: "And this poses something of a problem. If we date the rocks by their fossils, how can we then turn around and talk about patterns of evolutionary change through time in the fossil record?"—*Niles Eldredge, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution, 1985, p. 52. The curator of zoological collections at Oxford University wrote this: "A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn’t it?"—*Tom Kemp, "A Fresh Look at the Fossil Record," New Scientist 108, December 5, 1985, p. 66. *Norman Macbeth, in a speech at Harvard University in 1983, said this: "I have dealt with biologists over the last twenty years now. I have found that, in a way, they are hampered by having too much education. They have been steeped from their childhood in the Darwinian views, and, as a result, it has taken possession of their minds to such an extent that they are almost unable to see many facts that are not in harmony with Darwinism. These facts simply aren’t there for them often, and other ones are sort of suppressed or distorted. I’ll give you some examples. "First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the ‘Cambrian,’ 600 million years ago by the fossil reckoning. The fossils appear at that time [in the Cambrian] in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian, they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form. "One example of this is the little animal called the trilobite. There are a great many fossils of the trilobite right there at the beginning with no buildup to it [no evolution of life forms leading to it]. And, if you examine them closely, you will find that they are not simple animals. They are small, but they have an eye that has been discussed a great deal in recent years—an eye that is simply incredible. "It is made up of dozens of little tubes which are all at slightly different angles so that it covers the entire field of vision, with a different tube pointing at each spot on the horizon. But these tubes are all more complicated than that, by far. They have a lens on them that is optically arranged in a very complicated way, and it is bound into another layer that has to be just exactly right for them to see anything . . But the more complicated it is, the less likely it is simply to have grown up out of nothing. "And this situation has troubled everybody from the beginning—to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up [life forms first appear in the Cambrian strata] and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes."—*Norman Macbeth, Speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 150. Remember, we are here discussing one of the most common creatures at the very bottom of the fossil strata. Science News declared that the trilobite had "the most sophisticated eye lenses ever produced by nature." (*Science News 105, February 2, 1974, p. 72). Each eye of the trilobite had two lenses! Here is what one of the world’s leading trilobite researchers wrote: "In fact, this optical doublet is a device so typically associated with human invention that its discovery in trilobites comes as something of a shock. The realization that trilobites developed and used such devices half a billion years ago makes the shock even greater. And a final discovery—that the refracting interface between the two lense elements in a trilobite’s eye was designed ["designed"] in accordance with optical constructions worked out by Descartes and Huygens in the mid-seventeenth century—borders on sheer science fiction . . The design of the trilobite’s eye lens could well qualify for a patent disclosure."—*Riccardo Levi-Setti, Trilobites, 2nd ed., University of Chicago Press, 1993, pp. 54, 57. Scientists have remarked on how there seems to be a sudden vast quantity of living creatures as soon as the Cambrian begins. All this favors the concept of Creation and a Genesis Flood, not that of slowly occurring evolution over millions of years. "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467. Throughout the fossils, we find no transitions from one kind of creature to another. Instead, only individual, distinctive plant or animal kinds. "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."—*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149. To make matters worse, in the fossil record we find the very same creatures that we have today, plus a few extinct types which died out before our time! Neither now nor earlier are there transitional forms, halfway between true species. "When we examine a series of fossils of any age we may pick out one and say with confidence, ‘This is a crustacean’—or starfish, or a brachiopod, or annelid, or any other type of creature as the case may be."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, p. 100. In the rock strata, we find horses, tigers, fish, insects, but no transitional forms. For example, we find large horses and small horses, but nothing that is part horse and part something else. After giving years to a careful examination of the fossil record, comparing it with that of species alive today, a famous biologist on the staff of the Smithsonian Institute wrote these words: "All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114. "From the tangible evidence that we now have been able to discover, we are forced to the conclusion that all the major groups of animals at the very first held just about the same relation to each other that they do today."—*Op. cit., p. 211. (1) There are no transitional species preceding or leading up to the first multi-celled creatures that appear in the Cambrian, the lowest stratum level. (2) There are no transitional species elsewhere in the fossil record. (3) The species that appear in the fossils are frequently found in many different strata. (4) The great majority of the species found in the fossils are alive today. But of all the problems, this lack of transitional creatures—halfway between different species—is, for the evolutionist, probably the biggest single crisis in the geologic column. Indeed, it is one of the biggest of the many crises in evolutionary theory! "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species, and paleontology does not provide them."—*D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467. "It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptible changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution."—*G.G. Simpson, in The Evolution of Life, p. 149. "All the major groups of animals have maintained the same relationship to each other from the very first [from the very lowest level of the geologic column]. Crustaceans have always been crustaceans, echinoderms have always been echinoderms, and mollusks have always been mollusks. There is not the slightest evidence which supports any other viewpoint."—*A.H. Clark, The New Evolution: Zoogenesis (1930), p. 114. "From the tangible evidence that we now have been able to discover, we are forced to the conclusion that all the major groups of animals at the very first held just about the same relation to each other that they do today."—*Op. cit., p. 211. A related problem is the fact that great numbers of fossils span across many strata, supposedly covering millions of years. This means that, throughout the fossil record, those species made no changes during those "millions of years." THE OCTOPUS—Here is an excellent example of what we are talking about: The squid and octopus are the most complex of the invertebrates (animals without backbones). The eye of the octopus is extremely complicated, and equal to the human eye! Checking carefully through the fossil record, you will find only squid and octopi, nothing else. There was nothing evolved or evolving about them; they were always just squid and octopi. (You will also find an extinct species, called the nautiloids. But they seem to have been even more complex!) The links are missing. Nearly all the fossils are just our present animals; and the links between them are just not there. Few scientists today are still looking for fossil links between the major vertebrate or invertebrate groups. They have given up! The links just do not exist and have never existed. Evolution cannot explain this sudden emergence, and competent scientists acknowledge the fact: "The abrupt appearance of higher taxa in the fossil record has been a perennial puzzle. Not only do characteristic and distinctive remains of phyla appear suddenly, without known ancestors, but several classes of a phylum, orders of a class, and so on, commonly appear at approximately the same time, without known intermediates."—*James W. Valentine and *Cathryn A. Campbell, "Genetic Regulation and the Fossil Record," in American Scientist, November-December, 1975. "In spite of these examples, it remains true, as every paleontologist knows, that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories about the level of families, appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences."—*G.G. Simpson, The Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 360. "The sudden emergence of major adaptive types as seen in the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of families and orders, continued to give trouble. The phenomenon lay in the genetic no-man’s land beyond the limits of experimentation. A few paleontologists even today cling to the idea that these gaps will be closed by further collecting . . but most regard the observed discontinuities as real and have sought an explanation."—*D. Dwight Davis, "Comparative Anatomy and the Evolution of Vertebrates," in Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution (1949), p. 74. "The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: "Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. "Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’ "—*Steven Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Eratic Pace," in Natural History, May 1977, p. 14. FOSSILS SAME AS THOSE NOW ALIVE—All of the fossils can be categorized into one of two groups: (1) plants and animals which became extinct and (2) plants and animals which are the same as those living today. Neither category provides any evidence of evolution; for there are no transitional forms leading up to or away from any of them. All are only distinct species. Some creatures became extinct at the time of the Flood or shortly afterward. But all creatures which did not become extinct are essentially identical—both in fossil form and in their living counterparts today! This is a major point. No species evolution has occurred! The fossils provide no evidence of species evolution! "There are about 250,000 different species of fossil plants and animals known . . In spite of this large quantity of information, it is but a tiny fraction of the diversity that [according to the theory] actually lived in the past. There are well over a million species living today and . . [it is] possible to predict how many species ought to be in our fossil record. That number is at least 100 times the number we have found."—*David M. Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 22. Fossil hunters have the practice of giving different names to the same species if it is found in rocks of different periods! *Dr. Raup, head paleontologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, says that as much as 70 percent of all the "new" fossil species found, are misnamed. "Dr. Eldredge [American Museum of Natural History, New York City] was asked, ‘Do paleontologists name the same creatures differently when they are found in different geological periods?’ He replied that this happens, but they are mistakes. When asked the same question, Dr. Patterson [British Museum, London] replied, ‘Oh, yes, that’s very widely done.’ Next he was asked, ‘That doesn’t seem quite honest. You wouldn’t do that, would you?’ He said that he hoped he wouldn’t . . "Would not this practice make a lot more species? Dr. Raup [Chicago Museum] said it would; perhaps 70 percent of the species described [in the fossil rocks] are later found to be the same as existing species. So 70 percent of the new species named should not have been [given new names but were], either through ignorance or because of the ground rules used by the taxonomists."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), pp. 130-131. "An assistant of Dr. Eldredge, who was studying trilobite fossils at the American Museum, explained to the author how he made the decision on naming a new species: ‘I look at a fossil for about two weeks and then if I think it looks different enough, I give it a new name.’ So it is simply a mailer of judgment with no firm ground rules."—Op. cit., p. 131. The experts tell us there are "millions of species," when there are not that many. Taxonomists are the men who classify and give names to plants and animals. Among them, the "splitters" are the ones who find it easier to make up new names than to go to the trouble of properly identifying a specimen in hand. "We all know that many apparent evolutionary bursts are nothing more than brainstorms on the part of particular paleontologists. One splitter in a library can do far more than millions of years of genetic mutation."—*V. Ager, "The Nature of the Fossil Record," Proceedings of the Geological Association, Vol. 87, No. 2, 1976, p. 132 [Chairman of the Geology Department, Swansea University]. *Edward Cope and *Othniel Marsh were two major museum fossil collectors in Western U.S. They fiercely hated one another, and for decades consistently double-named specimens—which had already been named earlier. (See chapter 11, Animal and Plant Species, for more.) "Sadly, in the later bitter rivalry between Cope and Marsh, Leidy [an earlier fossil collector] was all but forgotten. Paleontologist Henry Fairfield Osborn, director of the American Museum of Natural History, recalled that many of the Eocene and Oligocene animals had been given three names in the scientific literature: the original Leidy name and the Cope and Marsh names."—*Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), pp. 272-273. A cardinal principle of evolutionary theory is that creatures must evolve into more complexity as well as bigger size. But the fossil record bears out neither theory. There is clear evidence of the complexity to be found in invertebrates, the supposedly "lowest" form of life. But there is a size differential as well: "[Edward Drinker] Cope is known to many students only for ‘Cope’s Law,’ which asserts, roughly speaking, that everything goes on getting bigger . . Alas, it is not generally true. The modern tiger is smaller than the sabre-toothed tiger of the last ice age . . The horsetails of our ditches are tiny compared with the sixty-foot [18 m] horsetails of the Carboniferous. And where are the giant snails of the early Cambrian or the giant oysters of the Tertiary?"—*G.R. Taylor, Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p 122. The Bible indicates that in ancient times, people lived longer and were much larger. So it should not be surprising that extinct creatures were frequently larger than those alive today. They probably lived longer too. Among the fossils we find the following: Plants: (1) Enormous plants once existed, far exceeding anything alive today. (2) Fifty-foot [152 dm] high ferns with 5-6 foot [15-18 dm] fronds. (3) Scouring rushes grew to a width of 12 inches [30.48 cm] in diameter. (4) One-hundred-foot [30.4 dm] high scale trees, with trunks 4-6 feet [12-18 dm] in diameter are found only in fossil form. None are alive today. Small sea life: (5) Giant trilobites up to 18 inches [45.72 cm] long, with none alive today, and the creatures now living and most similar to them are quite small. (6) Fifteen-foot [457 cm] long straight-shelled cephalopods (Enckiceras proteiforme) and 9-foot [1274 cm] sea scorpions (Euryprids) once lived. Nothing of such immense sizes is found among them today. Those fossil Euryprids were the largest arthropods that ever lived. Insects: (7) Some insects were 4 to 8 inches [10.16-20.32 cm] in length. Dragonflies had a wingspread of 29 inches [73.66 cm], and some centipedes were 12 inches [30.48 cm] in length. After publishing his 1978 book, Evolution, *Dr. Colin Patterson of the British Museum of Natural History was asked why he did not include a single photograph of a transitional fossil. In reply, Dr. Patterson said this: "I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise [portray] such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it. "[Steven] Gould [of Harvard] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least ‘show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.’ I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."—*Dr. Colin Patterson, letter dated April 10, 1979 to Luther Sunderland, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 89. Let us now leave *Dr. Colin Patterson in London, and go to the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago. It is one of the largest and oldest natural history museums in America—and probably in the world, and houses 20 percent of all fossil species known. Having had opportunity to carefully study these materials for years, *Dr. David Raup the leading paleontologist at this Field Museum, is in a position to speak with authority. He begins a key article summarizing what the fossil evidence reveals by saying: "Most people assume that fossils provide a very important part of the general argument made in favor of Darwinian interpretations of the history of life. Unfortunately, this is not strictly true."—*David Raup, "Conflicts between Darwin and Paleontology," in the Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979. *Dr. Raup then quotes a well-known statement by *Charles Darwin, that he (*Darwin) was "embarrassed" by the lack of fossil evidence for origins (the Cambrian problem) and transitions (the gap problem) in his day. Then *Raup declares that the situation today is even worse—for we now have so much more fossil evidence which tells us the same message it told *Darwin! Noting that *Darwin wrote that he hoped that future discoveries would unearth fossils which would fill the gaps and provide the missing links, *Raup then says: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time! By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information."—*Dr. David Raup, in op. cit. We will now leave Chicago and journey to one of the largest museums in the nation, the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, where *Dr. Niles Eldredge is in charge of its massive fossil collection. While attending a science writers’ convention in Gatlinburg, Tennessee in November 1978, *Dr. Eldridge was asked by a reporter for evidence from the fossil record of transitional changes from one species to another. A report of his reply was printed shortly afterward in the Los Angeles Times: "No one has found any such in-between creatures. This was long chalked up to ‘gaps’ in the fossil records, gaps that proponents of gradualism [gradual evolutionary change from species to species] confidently expected to fill in someday when rock strata of the proper antiquity were eventually located. But all the fossil evidence to date has failed to turn up any such missing links. "There is a growing conviction among many scientists that these transitional forms never existed."—*Niles Eldredge, quoted in "Alternate Theory of Evolution Considered," in Los Angeles Times, November 19, 1978. Drs. *Patterson, *Raup, and *Eldredge spent a lifetime in fossil analysis before giving the above statements. Together, they have been in charge of at least 50 percent of the major fossil collections of the world. They have the evidence, they know the evidence, they work with it day after day. Figuratively, they sit on top of the largest pile of fossil bones in the world! They know what they are talking about. Their conclusion: "There are no transitional forms." *David Raup, head paleontologist of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, describes the heart of the problem: "So the geological time scale and the basic facts of biological change over time are totally independent of evolutionary theory. In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions. In general, these have not been found—yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks."—*David M. Raup, "Evolution and the Fossil Record," in Science, July 17, 1981, p. 289. Plant and animal fossils are not normally found together, and why? Why would plants and animals normally not be found together in the fossil strata? The reason is simple enough. They were all washed into place by the worldwide Flood. The water tended to sort them out, resulting in rafts of vegetation being floated into place, which became our present coal beds, while other pockets in the strata became filled with "fossil graveyards" as animals were washed into other locations. Consider the bat: All the fossil bats look just like the ones that fly around now. It was reported that *Jepsen had found the oldest fossil bat ever! (*G.L. Jepsen reported in Science, for December 9, 1966). A photograph of its skeleton, plus an accompanying sketch are shown in the article. That oldest-known bat is supposedly 50 million years old, and yet it is just like a modern bat skeleton. And below it? not one transitional fossil anywhere that leads us from "lower forms of life" to the bat. When the bat first appears, it is all bat, and nothing but bat! But there are other living creatures which answer to the description of "dinosaurs." What is a dinosaur? Very simply, it is a large reptile. Crocodiles, alligators, and caiman are large reptiles. "Although they are now 99 percent extinct and seldom exceed twelve feet in length, the American alligator attained lengths of nearly twenty feet as recently as the turn of the century (see National Geographic Magazine, January 1967, p. 137). Only about 500 years ago the aepyornis, a dinosaur bird nearly ten feet [30 cm] tall and weighing half a ton [456 kg], still lived on the island of Madagascar (see National Geographic Magazine, October 1967, p. 493)."—John C. Whitcomb, World that Perished (1988), p. 30. The komodo dragon, truly a reptilian giant that attacks and kills large hogs, has a life span of 25 years, is 10 feet [30 dm] long, and has a weight of 350 pounds [158.76 kg]! It is decidedly larger than some of the extinct reptiles, called "dinosaurs." (There was a wide variety of extinct dinosaurs: Some of the extinct ones were quite small; some ran rapidly like ostriches and caught birds with their front paws, and some flew like birds.) "Nile crocodiles and American alligators belong to a group of reptiles called broad-nosed crocodilians. In the warmer parts of the world, broad-nosed crocodilians are the largest predators to walk on land. They are living fossils in the sense that they resemble ancient forms in the shapes and the ruggedness of their heads and bodies."—*Ernst Myer, "Crocodilians as Living Fossils," in Living Fossils (1984), p. 105. Shells from as far back as the Jurassic strata, which is supposed to be 135-180 million years old, have been found to have amino acids still locked into protein structures. The amino acid residues came from inside those shells—so the shells cannot be more than a few thousand years old! The Meister Print: Footprints on top of Trilobite Fossil "What may be the oldest fossil footprint yet found was discovered in June 1968 by William J. Meister, an amateur fossil collector, and reportedy, an evolutionist. If the print is what it appears to be-the impression of a sandaled shoe crushing a trilobite-it would have been made 300 to 600 million years ago and would be sufficient either to overturn all conventionally accepted ideas of human and geological evolution or to prove that a shoe-wearing biped from another world had once visited the planet. Meister made his potentially disturbing find during a rock-and fossil-hunting expedition to Antelope Spring, 43 miles west of Delta, Utah. He was accompanied by his wife and two daughters, and by Mr. And Mrs. Francis Shape and their two daughters. The party had already discovered several fossils of trilobites when Meister split open a two-inch-thick slab of rock with his hammer and discovered the outrageous print. The rock fell open 'like a book,' revealing: on one side the footprint of a human with trilobites right in the footprint itself. The other half of the rock slab showed an almost perfect mold of the footprint and fossils. Amazingly the human was wearing a sandal! Trilobites were small marine invertebrates, the relatives of crabs and shrimps, that flourished for some 320 million years before becoming extinct 280 million years ago(according to science). Humans are currently thought to have emerged between 1 and 2 million years ago and to have been wearing well-shaped footwear for no more than a few thousand years. The sandal that seems to have crushed a living trilobite was 101/4inches long and 31/2inches wide; the heel is indented slightly more than the sole, as a human shoe print would be. Meister took the rock to Melvin Cook, a professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, who advised him to show the specimen to the university geologists. When Meister was unable to find a geologist willing to examine the print, he went to a local newspaper, The Deseret News. Before long, the find received national publicity. In a subsequent news conference, the curator of the Museum of Earth Science at the University of Utah, James Madsen, said: There were no men 600 million years ago. Neither were there monkeys or bears or ground sloths to make pseudo human tracks. What man-thing could possibly have been walking about on this planet before vertebrates even evolved? Madsen then went on to say that the fossil must have been formed by a natural process, though of what kind he was unable to suggest. Dr. Jesse Jennings, of the university's anthropology department, guessed (rather boldly, considering the absence of any supporting visual evidence) that the print might have been made by one large trilobite coming to rest on three smaller ones. On July 20, 1968, the Antelope Spring site was examined by Dr.Clifford Burdick, a consulting geologist from Tucson, Arizona, who soon found the impression of a child's foot in a bed of shale. 'The impression,' he said, 'was about six inches in length, with the toes spreading, as if the child had never yet worn shoes, which compress the toes. There does not appear to be much of an arch, and the big toe is not prominent.' The print was shown to two geologists and a paleontologist. One of the geologist agreed that it appeared to be that of a human being, but the paleontologist's opinion was that no biological agent had been involved. Dr.Burdick stuck to his guns: The rock chanced to fracture along the front of the toes before the fossil footprint was found. On cross section the fabric of the rock stands out in fine laminations, or bedding planes. Where the toes pressed into the soft material, the laminations were bowed downward from the horizontal, indicating a weight that had been pressed into the mud. The men were completely unable to agree on where the natural boundaries occurred. Murchison, however, found a way to resolve the dispute. He got himself appointed director of the National Geological Survey and simply ordered that the name ‘Cambrian’ be deleted from all government books and geological maps."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 69. How can strata be missing? Yet this is the way it is everywhere on earth. In the Southwest United States, in order to find Paleozoic strata, we would need to go to the Grand Canyon. To find Mesozoic requires a trip to eastern Arizona. To find Tertiary, off we would have to go to New Mexico. Nowhere—anywhere—is the entire geologic column of the evolutionists to be found, for it is an imaginary column. "Practically nowhere on the earth can one find the so-called ‘geologic column.’ In fact, at most places on the continents, over half the ‘geologic periods’ are missing! Only 15-20 percent of the earth’s land surface has even one-third of these periods in the correct consecutive order. Even within the Grand Canyon, over 150 million years of this imaginary column are missing. Using the assumed geologic column to date fossils and rocks is fallacious."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 15. "Data from continents and ocean basins show that the ten [strata] systems are poorly represented on a global scale: approximately 77% of the earth’s surface area on land and under the sea has seven or more (70% or more) of the strata system missing beneath; 94% of the earth’s surface has three or more systems missing beneath; and an estimated 99.6% has at least one missing system. Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland) . . The entire geologic column, composed of complete strata systems, exists only in the diagrams drawn by geologists!"—S.A. Austin, Impact 137, November 1984, p. 2 [emphasis his]. "Whatever his method of approach, the geologist must take cognizance of the following facts: There is no place on the earth where a complete record of the rocks is present . . To reconstruct the history of the earth, scattered bits of information from thousands of locations all over the world must be pieced together. The results will be at best only a very incomplete record. "If the complete story of the earth is compared to an encyclopedia of thirty volumes, then we can seldom hope to find even one complete volume in a given area. Sometimes only a few chapters, perhaps only a paragraph or two, will be the total geological contribution of a region; indeed, we are often reduced to studying scattered bits of information more nearly comparable to a few words or letters."—*H. Brown, *V. Monnett, and *J. Stovall, Introduction to Geology (1958), p. 11. "We are only kidding ourselves if we think that we have anything like a complete succession for any part of the stratigraphical column in any one place."—*Derek V. Ager, Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (1981), p. 32. Remember, all names with an asterisk means they are evolutionists, not creationists. "Potentially more important to geological thinking are those unconformities that signal large chunks of geological history are missing, even though the strata on either side of the unconformity are perfectly parallel and show no evidence of erosion. Did millions of years fly by with no discernible effect? A possible though controversial inference is that our geological clocks and stratigraphic concepts need working on."—*Wílliam R. Corliss, Unknown Earth (1980), p. 219. How can it be that the geologic column is so incomplete, when evolutionary theory teaches that it was quietly, slowly laid down uniformly over millions of years? The truth is that the rock strata point us back to a terrible worldwide catastrophe—a Flood,—not to millions of years of gradual soil deposits from dead plants and windblown soil. What the tourists are not told is that the Grand Canyon—which has more strata than most areas—only has FIVE of the TWELVE major strata systems (the first, fifth, sixth, and seventh, with small portions here and there of the fourth). Totally missing are the second, third, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth! "One of the most spectacular evidences of what a year-long, worldwide Flood would accomplish may be seen in Grand Canyon of Arizona. This gigantic formation is in some places more than 5,000 feet [1,524 m] deep, 25,000 feet [7,620 m] across, and extends for more than 100 miles [160.9 km] to the east and west."—John C. Whitcomb, World that Perished (1988), pp. 74-75. If the sedimentary rock strata was slowly formed over millions of years in a uniformitarian manner, then all the strata should be found throughout the world. Keep in mind that evolution teaches that "each strata represents the accumulated sediment from a span of millions of years at a certain earlier epoch in earth’s history." If this theory were true, then ALL the strata would have to be found evenly, everywhere on the globe. Here is a statement in scientific jargon: "Many unconformity bounded units are considered to be chronostratigraphic units in spite of the fact that unconformity surfaces inevitably cut across isochronous horizons and hence cannot be true chronostratigraphic boundaries."—*C. Hong Chang, "Unconformity-Bounded Stratigraphic Units," in Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, November 1975, p. 1544. Here, in everyday English, is the meaning of that statement: Many of the tilted, folded, and mixed-up fossil strata are theoretically supposed to measure long ages of time, but in reality there is such confusion that it is impossible for such strata to measure anything! We in the 20th century bow low before the theories of "science," little realizing that a small group maintains a strict control over what will be researched and concluded while the majority of scientists stand silently aside, fearful to speak lest they lose their jobs. There is no evidence that evolution is now—or has ever—occurred among animals or plants either. Are they culturally evolving now also? In addition, it is strange that if man is essentially the same as he was a million years ago, then why did he only begin leaving writings, buildings, and artifacts during no more than the last few thousand years? Why does human history only go back less than 5,000 years? "The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never-dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily today as they did fifty years ago and more."— *Sir Solly Zukerman, "Myth and Method in Anatomy," in Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (1966), Vol. 11(2), pp. 87-114. "Many of the so-called ‘primitive’ peoples of the world today, most of the participants agreed, may not be so primitive after all. They suggested that certain hunting tribes in Africa, Central India, South America, and the Western Pacific are not relics of the Stone Age, as had been previously thought, but instead are the ‘wreckage’ of more highly developed societies forced through various circumstances to lead a much simpler, less developed life."—*Science Year, 1966, p. 256. *Diodorus Siculus, writing about 60 B.C., told of people living along the shores of the Red Sea in caves. He describes many other barbarian tribes, some of them quite primitive. Thus we see that both advanced civilizations and more backward cave cultures lived at the same time. We have no reason to conclude that the less advanced peoples were ancestors of the more advanced ones. Archaeologists tell us that, in some places in Palestine, people resembling the Neanderthal race lived in caves while not far away in Jericho people dwelt in well-built, beautifully decorated houses. In 1856 workers blasted a cave in the Neander Valley near Düsseldorf, Germany. Inside they found limb bones, pelvis, ribs, and a skull cap. The bones were examined by both scientists and evolutionists; and, for a number of years, all agreed that these were normal human beings. Even that ardent evolutionist and defender of *Darwin, *Thomas H. Huxley, said they belonged to people and did not prove evolution. *Rudolph Virchow, a German anatomist, said the bones were those of modern men afflicted with rickets and arthritis. Many scientists today recognize that they had bowed legs due to rickets, caused by a lack of sunlight. In 1886, two similar skulls were found at Spy, Belgium. In the early 1900s, a number of similar specimens were found in southern France. Over a hundred specimens are now in collections. A French paleontologist named *Marcellin Boule said they belonged to apelike creatures, but he was severely criticized for this even by other evolutionists who said this fossil was just modern man (Homo sapiens), deformed by arthritis. Neanderthal features include a somewhat larger brow ridge (the supra orbital torus), but it is known that arthritis can make this more prominent. Virchow noted that the thighbone (femur) was curved, a condition common to rickets. Lack of Vitamin D causes osteomalacia and rickets, producing a subtle facial change by increasing the size of the eye cavity (orbit), especially vertically. *D.J.M. Wright, in 1973, showed that congenital syphilis could also have caused the kind of bone deformities found in Neanderthal specimens. For much more information, see the book, Buried Alive, by Jack Cuozzo (1998). In it, he clearly shows that the Neanderthals were several hundred years old. Facial bones keep growing throughout life. He also discovered that the evolutionists had mismatched the upper and lower jaw, in order to make the Neanderthals look like apes. Here are two facts you will not find in the textbooks: (1) In 1908 a typical Neanderthal skeleton was found in Poland. It had been buried in a suit of chain armor that was not yet fully rusted ("Neanderthal in Armour," in *Nature, April 23, 1908, p. 587). (2) A Neanderthal skeleton was found in the Philippine Islands in 1910. Due to the extreme moisture of that land, it would be impossible for the skeleton to be as much as a century old ("Living Neanderthal Man," in *Nature, December 8, 1910, p. 176). Les Eyzies, in the Dordogne area of France. In the local dialect, cro-magnon means "big hole." A number of skeletons have been found there, and have been hailed as the great "missing link" between man and ape. The Cro-Magnons were truly human, possibly of a noble bearing. Some were over six feet tall, with a cranial volume somewhat larger than that of men today. This means they had more brains than men have today. Not only did they have some excellent artists among them, but they also kept astronomy records. The Cro-Magnons were normal people, not monkeys; and they provide no evidence of a transition from ape to man. Pride is a very bad teacher: "Perhaps more than any other science, human prehistory is a highly personalized pursuit, the whole atmosphere reverberating with the repeated collisions of oversized egos. The reasons are not difficult to discover. For a start, the topic under scrutiny—human origins—is highly emotional, and there are reputations to be made and public acclaim to be savoured for people who unearth ever older putative human ancestors. But the major problem has been the pitifully small number of hominid fossils on which prehistorians exercise their imaginative talents."—*Roger Lewin, "A New Focus for African Prehistory," in New Scientist, September 29, 1977, p. 793. If evolution is not a lie, then why keep lying? JAVA MAN—(*#5/5 Java Man*) In 1891, Java Man was found. This is a classic instance of a man searching for evidence to support a theory. *Eugene Dubois became a convinced evolutionist while attending a Dutch college. Dropping out of school, he began searching for fossils in Sumatra and other Dutch East Indies islands. He shipped thousands of crates of regular animal bones back to Holland, and then went to Java. In September 1891 near the village of Trinil in a damp place by the Solo River, *Dubois found a skull cap. A year later and fifty feet from where he had found the skull cap, he found a femur. Later he found three teeth in another location in that area. *Dubois assumed that (1) all these bones were from the same individual, and (2) that they were as much as a million years old. Nearby, in the same condition (indicating the same approximate age), he also found two human skulls (known as the Wadjak skulls), but he did not publicize this find; for they had a cranial capacity somewhat above that of modern man. Thirty-one years later, in 1922, he admitted the Wadjak skull was an ape. Excitedly, *Dubois reported the find (the pieces of bone) as "Java Man," and spent the rest of his life promoting this great discovery. The thigh bone was a normal human upper leg bone. As might be expected, many experts questioned whether all the bones came from the same person, and even if they did, they said they were human bones, not ape bones. But *Dubois spent most of the remainder of his life lecturing and telling people about the "half-human/half-ape" bones that he had found in Java in 1891-1892. He named it Pithecanthropus erectus (erect ape-man). British zoologists thought it was human, German experts decided it was ape, and the French conjectured that it was something between the two. Finally, in 1907 a German expedition was sent from Berlin to Java to settle the matter. But *Dubois would not show them his "bone collection" nor help them in any way. Arriving in Java, they went over the Trinil site thoroughly, removed 10,000 cubic meters [1,379 cu yd] of material and 43 boxfuls of bones, and then declared it all to be wasted time. Their main discovery was that *Dubois’ Java Man bones had been taken from a depth that came from a nearby volcano. It had overflowed in the recent past and spewed forth lava, which overwhelmed and buried a number of people and animals. About 15 years before his death, and after most evolutionists had become convinced that his find was nothing more than bones from a modern human,—*Dubois announced his conviction that the bones belonged to a gibbon! School textbooks and popular books for the public continue to cite 500,000 years as the age of "Java Man," which, admittedly, is quite an imaginary figure. EC534.jpg (182547 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE PILTDOWN MAN—(*#6/7 Piltdown Man / #10 The Story of Piltdown Man*) In 1912, Piltdown Man was found. This created a great sensation in both the newspapers and halls of science when it was announced by the British Geological Society. They gave it the scientific name, Eoanthropus dawsoni. For nearly 40 years the scientific world bowed before Piltdown Man as the great key to human evolution. Only one specimen existed, when there ought to be thousands if it was really genuine. Paintings were made of the great men who found and worked on it; and three of those men were later knighted by the king of England. Such is the stuff of glory. Ignored was the report of a dentist in 1916 who said that the teeth had been filed down by someone. In 1953, *Joseph Weiner and *Kenneth Oakley applied a recently developed fluorine test to the bones—and found that Piltdown Man was a grand hoax! Someone had taken an ape jaw and put it with a human skull, filed the teeth somewhat, and then carefully stained it all so that the bones looked both ancient and a matching set. Imported mammalian fossils and handcrafted tools were placed nearby. It took 40 years to unravel that particular hoax. (Later in this chapter, the story is discussed in more detail.) "Careful examination of the bone pieces [in 1953] revealed the startling information that the whole thing was a fabrication, a hoax perpetrated by Dawson, probably, to achieve recognition. The skulls were collections of pieces, some human and some not. One skull had a human skull cap but an ape lower jaw. The teeth had been filed and the front of the jaw broken off to obscure the simian [ape] origin. Some fragments used had been stained to hide the fact that the bones were not fossil, but fresh. In drilling into the bones, researchers obtained shavings rather than powder, as would be expected in truly fossilized bone."—Harold G. Coffin, Creation: Accident or Design? (1961), p. 221. RHODESIAN MAN—In 1921, Rhodesian Man was discovered in a cave. Anthropologists and artists set to work turning him into a half-ape/half-human sort of creature. But then a competent anatomist had the opportunity to examine it, and found that this was just a normal human being. Further analysis revealed dental caries which modern diets tend to produce, and also a hole through the skull made by a bullet or crossbow. So Rhodesian Man was not so ancient after all. TAUNG AFRICAN MAN—Taung African Man was found in 1924 by *Raymond Dart, when he came across the front face and lower jaw of an immature ape in a cave in the Taung limestone quarry of South Africa. He rushed to report it, accompanied by extravagant claims. A majority of scientists rejected this find, but the press loudly proclaimed it to be the "the missing link." Today most experts dismiss it as the skull of a young ape. "Differences due to age are especially significant with reference to the structure of the skull in apes. Very pronounced changes occur during the transition from juvenile to adult in apes, but not in Man. The skull of a juvenile ape is somewhat different from that of Man. We may remember that the first specimen of Australopithecus that was discovered by Raymond Dart, the Tuang ‘child,’ was that of a juvenile [ape]. This juvenile skull should never have been compared to those of adult apes and humans."—Duane Gish, Evolution: the Challenge of the Fossil Record (1985), p. 178. NEBRASKA MAN—(*#7/2 Nebraska Man*) Nebraska Man was found in 1922. Well, not exactly. A single molar tooth was found in 1922,—and called "Nebraska Man"! Based on that one tooth, an artist was told to make a picture. He did so and it went around the world. Nebraska Man was a key evidence at the Scopes trial in July 1925 in Dayton, Tennessee. In 1928, it was discovered that the tooth belonged to "an extinct pig"! In 1972, living specimens of the same pig were found in Paraguay. *Grafton Smith, one of those involved in publicizing "Nebraska Man" was knighted for his efforts in making known this fabulous find. *Henry F. Osborn, a leading paleontologist, ridiculed William Jennings Bryan at the Scopes Trial, declaring that the tooth was "the herald of anthropoid apes in America," and that it "speaks volumes of truth" (*H.F. Osborn, Evolution and Religion in Education, 1926, p. 103). At the trial, two specialists in teeth at the American Museum of Natural History, said that, after careful study, the tooth was definitely from a species closer to man than to the ape (Science 55, May 5, 1922, p. 464). PEKING MAN—Peking Man emerged on the international scene in the 1920s. The finances of *Davidson Black were just about running out, and he needed help, when in 1927 he found a tooth near Peking, China. The *Rockefeller Foundation stepped forward and gave him $80,000 to continue research on this colossal find. So *Black continued looking and came up with a skull, copies of which are displayed today in biology laboratories. *Black named it Sinanthropus pekinensis ("China man from Peking"), and received honors from all over the world for his discovery. After his death in 1934, the Jesuit that helped prepare Piltdown Man (*Teilhard de Chardin) took over the work at the site. Then *Franz Weidenreich led out until all work stopped in 1936, because of the Japanese invasion of China. This turned out to be some kind of town garbage dump. Although thousands of animal bones were found in this pit near Peking, only a few human skulls were found, and there was no evidence that they had evolved from anything else—even though there was 150 feet of animal bones in the pit. These human bones totaled 14 skulls in varying conditions, 11 jawbones, 147 teeth and a couple small arm bone and femur fragments, along with stone tools and carbon ash from fires. These were human bones, but with a somewhat smaller brain capacity (1,000cc., which some people today have), and with the prominent brow ridges which we find in Neanderthals and Australopithecus. For more sources of lies that have masqueraded as truth go to: http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-13a.htm They say that they have found the bones of our hominid ancesters. Why then have only a table-top full of bones been found? There ought to be millions of bones, if they lived for hundreds of thousands of years before us. And why do all those bones look only like ape bones or human bones—and never like both? They say that modern evolutionary anthropology is based on the pioneering discoveries of six men: * Eugene Dubois and his Java Man, *Charles Dawson’s Piltdown Man, the 1921 Rhodesian Man, the 1922 Nebraska Man, *Raymond *Dart’s Taung African Man, and *Davidson Black’s Peking Man. But the finds of *Dubois and *Dawson were later discovered to be outright fakes. Rhodesian and Taung Man were found to be apes. Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig tooth, and Peking Man was just human bones. Even *Richard Leakey, the foremost hominid bone hunter of the past 20 years has begun to question what it is all about. When asked on television to name our ancestor, he walked over to a chalkboard and drew a large question mark. "By 1989, [Richard] Leakey sought to distance himself from his original theory, insisting any attempts at specific reconstructions of the human lineage were premature."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 218. The following statement by Brown is highly significant. It tells us this: (1) The very expensive mass spectrometer machine actually counts C-14 atoms and gives more accurate totals. (2) Every organic specimen has some radiocarbon atoms, therefore none are more than a few thousand years old. (3) The earliest skeletal remains in the Western hemisphere have been dated by this method, and found to be only about 5,000 years old. "Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, the carbon-14 atoms in a specimen can now be actually counted. This gives more precise radiocarbon dates with even smaller specimens. The standard, but less accurate, radiocarbon dating technique only attempts to count the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations. This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen—even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. The minimum amount of carbon-14 is so consistent that contamination can probably be ruled out. If the specimens were millions of years old, there would be virtually no carbon-14 remaining in them. "Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the Western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain carbon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95. The problem is that when orthodox science discovers that a new procedure will topple major evolutionary foundations, a cover-up occurs. It is likely that the mass spectrometer technique will never be permitted to be applied to major ancient archaeological or pre-archaeological materials, such as ancient hominid bones. To do so would reveal their recent age. "Modern man, Homo sapiens, is the only hominid on Earth today; all living humans belong to this one species."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 215. The name, Homo sapiens, is Latin for "the wise one." But if evolution is random, tenacious, inherent, progressive, continual, and never-ending,—then why did it stop 100,000 years ago? In addition, if man is supposed to have lived here for a million years, why do human historical dates only go back less than 5,000 years? GUADELOUPE WOMAN—Well, you say, I’ve never heard of this one." No, because it is never discussed by the evolutionists. It is a well-authenticated discovery which has been in the British Museum for over half a century. In 1812, on the coast of the French Caribbean island of Guadeloupe, a fully human skeleton was found, complete in every respect except for the feet and head. It belonged to a woman about 5 foot 2 inches [15.54 dm] tall. What makes it of great significance is the fact that this skeleton was found inside extremely hard, very old limestone, which was part of a formation more than a mile [1.609 km] in length! Modern geological dating places this formation at 28 million years old—which is 25 million years before modern man is supposed to have first appeared on earth! Since such a date for a regular person does not fit evolutionary theory, you will not find "Guadeloupe Woman" mentioned in the Hominid textbooks. To do so would be to disprove evolutionary dating of rock formations. When the two-ton limestone block, containing Guadeloupe Woman, was first put on exhibit in the British Museum in 1812, it was displayed as a proof of the Genesis Flood. But that was 20 years before Lyell and nearly 50 years before Darwin. In 1881, the exhibit was quietly taken down to the basement and hidden there. CALAVERAS SKULL—In 1876, 130 feet [39.6 dm] below ground, "Calaveras Skull" was found in the gold-bearing gravels of the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. The skull was completely mineralized, was authenticated by a physician as equivalent to a modern man, and certified by an evolutionist (*J.D. Whitney, chief of the California Geological Survey), as having been found in Pliocene stratum. That would mean that this person lived "over 2 million years ago,"—thus disproving evolutionary theories regarding both rock strata and the dating of ancient man. Literally dozens of stone mortars, bowls, and other man-made artifacts were found near this skull. *Dr. W.H. Holmes, who investigated the Calaveras skull, presented his results to the Smithsonian Institute in 1899: "To suppose that man could have remained unchanged physically, mentally, socially, industrially and aesthetically for a million years, roughly speaking (and all this is implied by the evidence furnished), seems in the present state of our knowledge hardly less than a miracle! It is equally difficult to believe that so many men should have been mistaken as to what they saw and found."—*W.H. Holmes, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), pp. 124-125. Young earth means young humans, but is there proof. Yes. THE CASTINEDOLO SKULL—For many years, the oldest skulls of man known to exist have been those found at Calaveras, in California, and the perfectly human skull in Castinedolo, Italy. *Arthur Keith, one of the group that announced Piltdown Man to the world, said this: "As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the Castinedolo finds, a feeling of incredulity is raised within him. He cannot reflect the discovery as false without doing injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without altering his accepted beliefs (i.e. his belief in the evolution of man). It is clear that we cannot pass Castinedolo by in silence: all the problems relating to the origin and antiquity of modern man focus themselves round it."—*Sir Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man, p. 43. THE MOAB SKELETONS—Two skeletons were found in Cretaceous rock that supposedly dates back to 100 million years in the past. Moab, Utah is located in eastern Utah on the Colorado River, close to the Colorado border. The Big Indian Copper Mine had been digging into this rock for several years, when the quality of ore became too poor to continue excavation. Work was stopped about 15 feet [45.7 dm] below the surface of the hill. Mr. Lin Ottinger, a friend of the mine superintendent, received permission to dig for artifacts and azurite specimens. Accompanied by friends from Ohio, he dug and found a tooth and bone fragments, all obviously from human beings. Tracing them to their source, he uncovered one complete skeleton. At this, he stopped and notified W. Lee Stokes, head of the geology department of the University of Utah, who sent the university anthropologist, J.P. Marwitt, to investigate. Working with Ottinger, Marwitt found a second skeleton. The bones were in place where they had been buried, undisturbed, and still articulated (joined together naturally)—indicating no pronounced earth movement. They were also green from the malachite (copper carbonate) in the surrounding sandstone. These two skeletons were definitely Homo sapiens, and definitely ancient. They were found in Cretaceious strata (supposedly 70-135 million years ago). The bodies were obviously buried at the time of the emplacement of the sandstone rock, which itself had been completely undisturbed prior to uncovering the skeletons. "Black bits of chalococite, a primary type of copper ore, are still in place [on the skeletons when found]. Chemical alteration changes this to blue azurite or green malachite, both carbonated minerals formed in the near surface or oxidized areas of the earth’s crust. This diagenesis takes time."—Clifford L. Burdick, "Discovery of Human Skeletons in Cretaceous Formation" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1973, p. 110. The bones, clearly ancient, were then tested for age, and found to be only several thousands years old: "University of Arizona personnel performed the Micro K Jell Dahl or nitrogen retention test on the bones, and found them comparatively recent in origin, that is well within Biblical time limits."—Ibid. Human footprints have been found in supposedly ancient rock strata. Evolution says that man did not evolve until the late Tertiary, and therefore cannot be more than one to three million years old. But human footprints have been found in rocks from as early as the Carboniferous Period, which is "250 million years old." "On sites reaching from Virginia and Pennsylvania, through Kentucky, Illinois, Missouri and westward toward the Rocky Mountains, prints, from 5 to 10 inches long, have been found on the surface of exposed rocks, and more and more keep turning up as the years go by."—*Albert C. lngalls, "The Carboniferous Mystery," in Scientific America, January 1940, p. 14. The evidence clearly shows that these footprints were made when the rocks were soft mud. Either modern man lived in the very earliest evolutionary eras of prehistory, or all rock dating must be shrunk down to a much shorter time frame—during all of which man lived. "If man, or even his ape ancestor, or even that ape ancestor’s early mammalian ancestor, existed as far back as in the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving. Hence for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous Period with his feet."—*lbid. THE LAETOLI TRACKS—Human tracks from Laetoli in East Africa are described in the April 1979 issue of National Geographic and the February 9, 1980, issue of Science News. The prints look just like yours and mine. Evolutionists admit that they look exactly like human footprints, and say they are in "3.5 million year old" rock,—but refuse to accept them as made by humans, because to do so would destroy all their strata dating theories. One desperate scientist rented a trained bear and had him dance around in wet mud, in the hope the print would look like the human prints found in solid shale. His conclusion was that the Laetoli prints were identical to those of regular people. *Mary Leakey, the wife of the famous anthropologist *Louis Leakey and mother of *Richard Leakey, found these fully human footprints in rock which dates to nearly 4 million years ago. "Mary Leakey has found at Laetoli in Africa, footprints which are considered to date from nearly 4 million years ago, and are identical with the footprints of modern humans except that they are somewhat smaller [Mary O. Leakey, "Footprints Frozen in Time," National Geographic, 155 (4): 446-457(1979)]. They might, in fact, be identical with the footprints of a modern female, of an age in the teens. Moreover, *Mary Leakey and *Dr. Johanson have found teeth and jawbones which, except that they are again a little smaller, are of virtually identical appearance with those of modern humans. These remains, found at Laotoli and Hadar, date from about 3.75 million years ago. Johanson found also at Hadar the bones of a hand, ‘uncannily like our own’ dated to about 3.5 million years ago."—W. Mehlert, "The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 24. "[In 1982, Richard Leakey] was also convinced from the famous foot prints at Laetoli that the genus Homo existed 3.75 million years B.C. (700,000 years before Lucy)."—A.W. Mehlert, News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145 [emphasis his]. "At a site called Laetoli in Kenya, 30 miles [48.27 km] south of Olduvai Gorge, in 1976-1978, she [Mary Leakey] made what she considers the most exciting discovery of her career: preserved footprints of three hominid individuals who had left their tracks in soft volcanic ash more than three million years ago. It is a remarkable record of ‘fossilized’ behavior, establishing that very ancient man-like creatures walked exactly as we do."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 270. THE GLEN ROSE TRACKS—In a Cretaceous limestone formation (dated at 70-135 million years ago) near Glen Rose, Texas, are to be found some remarkable human footprints of giant men. You can go look at them for yourself. (But when you arrive, ask one of the old timers to tell you where to search. As soon as they are exposed, they gradually begin eroding away.) Glen Rose is located in north central Texas, about 40 miles [64.36 km] southwest of the Fort Worth-Dallas metropolitan area. The area has little rainfall, and for several months each year the Paluxy River is completely dry. From time to time the river changes its course. This occurs at those times when the quiet river becomes a raging torrent. Because the river has such a steep slope (a drop of 17 feet [51.8 dm] per mile [1.609 km]), it is the second-swiftest river in Texas and quite dangerous in time of heavy rainfall. It was after the terrible flood of 1908, when the river rose 27 feet [82.3 dm] that the prints first began to be noticed. The new riverbed brought to view a flat rock bottom with animal and human prints in what was once wet mud, which had turned to stone. Clifford L. Burdick, a mining geologist, and *Roland T. Bird, a paleontologist with the American Museum of Natural History, carefully examined and reported on the footprints. The present writer is over six feet [18.2 dm] tall and has a foot that is about 10½ inches [26.67 cm] in length (he wears a size 12 shoe). The Glen Rose tracks are 15 inches [38.1 cm] long, and were probably made by people 8.3 feet [25.38 dm] tall. "Yes, they apparently are real enough. Real as the rock could be . . the strangest things of their kind I had ever seen. On the surface of each was splayed the near-likeness of a human foot, perfect in every detail. But each imprint was 15 inches long."—*Roland T. Bird, "Thunder in His Footsteps," in Natural History, May 1939, p. 255. During his research at the Paluxy River Bed near Glen Rose, Dr. Bird found not only human footprints, but also, by them, trails of large three-toed carnivorous dinosaurs, and the tracks of a gigantic sauropod. Each print was 24 x 38 inches [60.9 x 96.5 cm] in size, 12 feet [36.57 dm] apart, and sunk deeply into the mud! Both man and dinosaur were apparently running. In 1938, under Bird’s supervision, a trail of Brontosaurus tracks were taken from the bed and shipped to the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. C.L. Burdick’s findings were published in the Spring 1957 issue of The Naturalist. "The first week in August, Dr. Clifford Burdick, well-traveled consulting geologist of Tucson, Arizona, visited the site of the discovery at Antelope Springs with Mr. Carlisle [a graduate geologist at the University of Colorado]. On this visit Dr. Burdick found a footprint of a barefoot child in the same location as my discovery. He showed me this footprint August 18. "The day before, my family and I had met Dr. Burdick at Antelope Springs. While there we found another sandal print. Dr. Burdick continued, and on Monday, August 19, he informed me by letter that he had found a second child’s footprint. "In addition to my discovery and that of Dr. Burdick, a friend of mine, George Silver, digging alone in this location, discovered more footprints of a human or human beings, also shod in sandals. His specimen, which he showed to me (I also showed this specimen to Dr. Melvin Clark), had two footprints, one about a half inch [2.54 cm] above and on top of the other. Evidence can change a man's mind, and later maybe even his heart. Maybe that's why evidence is hidden. "Finally Dean Bitter, teacher in the public schools of Salt Lake City, discovered other footprints of human beings wearing sandals much like those found by George Silver and me. Both Dr. Cook and I have seen his specimens found at Antelope Springs, some distance from the site of my discovery."—William J. Meister, Sr., "Discovery of Trilobite Fossils in Shod Footprint of Human in ‘Trilobite Beds’ - A Cambrian Formation - Antelope Springs, Utah," in Why Not Creation? (1970), p. 190. As a result of finding the footprints, Meister became a Christian. For MANY more proofs of human & dinosaur tracks together, and many human objects found in supposedly millions of year old starata, go to: http://evolutionfacts.com/Evolution-handbook/E-H-13b.htm "Wallace, Charles Darwin’s ‘junior partner’ in discovering natural selection, had a disturbing problem: He did not believe their theory could account for the evolution of the human brain. "In the Origin of Species (1859), Darwin had concluded that natural selection makes an animal only as perfect as it needs to be for survival in its environment. But it struck Wallace that the human brain seemed to be a much better piece of equipment than our ancestors really needed. "After all, he reasoned, humans living as simple tribal hunter-gatherers would not need much more intelligence than gorillas. If all they had to do was gather plants and eggs and kill a few small creatures for a living, why develop a brain capable, not merely of speech, but also of composing symphonies and doing higher mathematics? "Neverthess, Wallace’s problem remains unsolved; the emergence of the human mind is still a mystery."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 457. Human language buffaloes the scientists. There is no way it can fit into evolutionary theories. Language marks an unbridgeable gulf between man and all other life forms on our planet. "The use of language is very closely associated with the superior thinking ability of humans. In his ability to communicate man differs even more from other animals than he does in his learning or thinking . . We know absolutely nothing about the early stages in the development of language."—*Ralph Linton, The Tree of Culture (1955), pp. 8-9. "Many ‘primitive’ languages . . are often a great deal more complex and more efficient than the languages of the so-called higher civilizations."—*Ashley Montague, Man: His First Million Years, p. 116. "No group of human beings today, even those living in a stone-age culture, speak what could be conceived of as a primitive language. Furthermore, no known language in all of history was in any sense primitive. Elgin remarks, ‘The most ancient languages for which we have written texts—Sanskrit, for example—are often far more intricate and complicated in their grammatical forms than many contemporary languages.’ "—Les Bruce, Jr., "On the Origin of Language," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 264. [Bruce was completing his doctorate in linguistics when he wrote this article.] There is a world of significance in the fact that ancient languages were always more complicated than those now spoken by mankind. This clearly points us to the fact that ancient men were more intelligent than those living on earth today. "Many other attempts have been made to determine the evolutionary origin of language, and all have failed . . Even the peoples with least complex cultures have highly sophisticated languages, with complex grammar and large vocabularies, capable of naming and discussing anything that occurs in the sphere occupied by their speakers . . The oldest language that can reasonably be reconstructed is already modern, sophisticated, complete from an evolutionary point of view."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "Biological Nature of Man," Science, April 1966, p. 477. *Simpson, former professor of Vertebrate Paleontology at Harvard, has been one of the leading evolutionary spokesmen of the mid-20th century. Acknowledging the vast gulf that separates animal communication from human languages, he admits that the most ancient human languages were the most complex. "Yet it is incredible that the first language could have been the most complex."—*George Gaylord Simpson, Biology and Man (1969), p. 116. Languages not only reveal that the most ancient of our ancestors were more intelligent than we are today, but they also clarify where the first people lived after the Flood. In great waves, the families of man moved outward from Anatolia (eastern Turkey) and northern Babylonia (northern Iraq) into all the world. And linguists today can trace the path. *Noam Chomsky, professor of Linguistics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been considered to be one of the world’s leading linguists. He worked for years with apes, trying to teach them language. "There is no reason to suppose that the ‘gaps’ [between human language and animal sounds] are bridgeable. There is no more of a basis for assuming an evolutionary development of ‘higher’ from ‘lower’ stages, in this case, than there is for assuming an evolutionary development from breathing to walking."—*Noam Chomsky, Language and Mind (1972), p. 68. "Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world."—*Op. cit., p. 67. ANCIENT CULTURES—Scientists frequently note that the races and languages of man indicate that mankind appears to have migrated from a central point, located somewhere in the Near East or Asia Minor. This would agree with the conditions following the Flood, and the fact that the ark came to rest in eastern Turkey (see Genesis 8-9). Evolutionists tell us that 500,000 to 150,000 years ago, man developed a "modern brain." Then why did he wait until 5,000 years ago to begin using it? Evolutionists tell us that man first originated in central Africa (because of ape bones they have found there). Then why did all the earliest human cultural activities begin in the Near East—instead of central Africa? Although attempts have been made to use recovered stone tools and other stone technology as a means of determining dates, it is now known that dates cannot be obtained from them. "In archaeology it is now realized, despite long resistance, that dating and classification by means of technical typology, for example stone tools, is no longer possible in many cases."—*D.A. Bowen, Quarterly Geology (1978), p. 193. THE EARLIEST DOMESTIC CROPS AND ANIMALS—Evidence of the earliest crops and domesticated animals is always in the Near East, generally in the plains below eastern Turkey where the Ararat Mountains are located. The dates, like 7000 B.C. given by Harlan and others for this near-eastern outburst of agriculture, probably collapse down to something like 3400 B.C. when the vagaries of the C-14 dating method are taken into account."—George Howe and Walter Lammerts, "Biogeography from a Creationist Perspective: II. The Origin and Distribution of Cultivated Plants," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, p. 8. [The Harland reference is as follows: J.R. Harland, "The Plants and Animals that Nourish Man," in Scientific American, 235(3):89-97; especially note pp. 94-95.] (1) With hardly any exception, the first domesticated plants and animals—and all types of them, whether domesticated or not domesticated, first appear in the Near East. (2) The earliest dates for those plants and animals by which mankind survives only go back to 7000 B.C. When those carbon-14 dates are corrected, they become 3000 B.C. dates. EVIDENCE FROM ANCIENT BRITAIN—An engineering professor at Oxford University wrote an unusual book in 1967, in which he described the advanced intelligence, learning, and skills of ancient peoples in what are now England and Scotland. Because of the large stone structures they built, he called them "megalithic peoples." Over a period of 40 years, Some 600 megalithic sites were surveyed, which he dated to 2000-1600 B.C.; so he decided that Megalithic Man was an expert engineer, metrologist [expert in measuring], astronomer, geometrician, and boatbuilder. "It suggests that mathematics reached a stage of development about 2000 years B.C. that archaeologists and historians of science had never imagined possible."—*New York Times, January 8, 1950, pp. 1, 28. There is no evidence anywhere of the evolution of the human mind. "Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it."—*B. Rensberger, "Ancestors: A Family Album," Science Digest, 89:34-43 (1981). I've always hated cavemen, or "ape like" drawings, or figures in museums, as a child they really scared me. Now I know why, they are all part of the lie, and all lies only come from one place, the father of them all. The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men."—*James C. King, The Biology of Race (1971), pp. 135, 151. Imagination takes the place of evidence. "The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. They are paid to produce something halfway between an ape and a human being."—*"AnthroArt," Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41. *Johanson, a leading expert at trying to locate ancient hominids in Africa, declares that no one really knows what they looked like. "No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like."—*Donald C. Johanson and *Maitland A. Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (1981), p. 286. It is all a land of fantasy. "[There is not] enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorizing out of the realms of fantasy."—*New Scientist, August 3, 1972, p. 259 [book review of Bjorn Kurten’s Not from the Apes: Man’s Origins and Evolution]. The most damaging evidence against evolution comes from those who are true experts in their fields, who discover the truth, even if they aren't willing to admit it. PILBEAM CHANGES HIS MIND—*David Pilbeam of the Boston Museum was a lifetime expert in the field of paleoanthropology (the study of fossils). In an article written for Human Nature magazine in June 1978, entitled, "Rearranging our Family Tree," he reported that discoveries since 1976 had radically changed his view of human origins and man’s early ancestors. Pilbeam ranked so high in the field, that he was the adviser to the government of Kenya in regard to the establishment of an international institute for the study of human origins. Kenya has for decades been the center of hominid research, because of the efforts of *Richard Leakey and his mother, *Dr. Mary Leakey to dig ancient half-man/half-ape bones out of the ground. The Leakeys have their headquarters in Nairobi. In later articles, such as the one in Annual Reviews of Anthropology, *Pilbeam has amplified on his changed position. In the 1970s, while working in Kenya and personally examining the skimpy bone fragments of "ancient man," *Pilbeam was forced to the conclusion there was no real evidence of any kind—anywhere—of man’s supposed ape ancestors! LEAKEY ADMITS THE TRUTH—For years, *Richard Leakey has tried to prove that man’s half-ape ancestors were the Australopithecines of East Africa. But of these bones, *Pilbeam said, "there is no way of knowing whether they are the ancestors to anything or not." Shortly afterward, *Richard Leakey himself summed up the problem on a Walter Cronkite Universe program, when he said that if he were to draw a family tree for man, he would just draw a large question mark. And he added that, not only was the fossil evidence far too scanty for any real certainty about anything related to man’s evolutionary origins, but there was little likelihood that we were ever going to know it. That is an astounding admission, considering that it comes from the leading hominid hunter of the last half of the 20th century. At that time, *Leakey gave up looking for old bones, and began championing animal conservation in Kenya. *William R. Fix, another expert in the field of early man, wrote a scathing book, The Bone Peddlers, in which he examined in detail the subject of paleoanthropology. He showed that, not only do the anthropologists themselves doubt the validity of the "bone" evidence, but research and new discoveries have eliminated each of man’s supposed apelike ancestors from his family tree. "The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools . . Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have temerity to tell us that there is ‘no doubt’ how man originated. If only they had the evidence . . "I have gone to some trouble to show that there are formidable objections to all the subhuman and near-human species that have been proposed as ancestors."—*William Fix, The Bone Peddlers (1984), pp. 150-153 "In view of many paleoanthropologists, the story of human evolution has been fictionalized to suit needs other than scientific rigor."—*B. Rensberger, "Facing the Past," in Science, October 1981, Vol. 81, pp. 41, 49. "Compared to other sciences, the mythic element is greatest in paleoanthropology. Hypotheses and stories of human evolution frequently arise unprompted by data and contain a large measure of general preconceptions, and the data which do exist are often insufficient to falsify or even substantiate them. Many interpretations are possible. These books all provide new alternatives, some refining the subject with new information; all, in varying degrees, supplant the old myths with new ones."—*W. Hill, "Book Review," in American Scientist (1984), Vol. 72, pp. 188-189. "The unscientific and doctrinaire character of the whole of this field of study is well epitomized. So much glamor still attaches to the theme of the missing link, and to man’s relationships with the animal world, that it may always be difficult to exorcise [remove] from the comparative study of Primates, living and fossil, the kind of myths which the unaided eye is able to conjure out of a well of wishful thinking."—*S. Zuckerman, Beyond the Ivory Tower (1970), p. 64. The oldest historical records of mankind in our possession were written by Moses. These are the books of Genesis and Job. In the first of these is given the history of the world from about 4000 B.C. on down to about 1900 B.C. In the first two chapters of Genesis we find an account of Creation Week, when our world and everything in it were made. In Genesis 6 to 9 we are told about the worldwide Flood that occurred about 2348 B.C. Noah's flood: FLOOD PREDICTIONS—If the Flood caused the sedimentary rock strata, with their billions of fossils, then the following points would be expected;—and, upon examination of the fossils in the strata—they all prove true: (1) Animals living at the lowest levels would tend to be buried in the lowest strata. (2) Creatures buried together—would tend to be buried with other animals that lived in the same region or ecological community. (3) Hydrologic forces (the suck and drag of rapidly moving water) would tend to sort out creatures of similar forms. Because of lower hydraulic drag, those with the simplest shapes would tend to be buried first. (4) Backboneless sea creatures (marine invertebrates), since they live on the sea bottom, would normally be found in the bottom strata. (5) Fish would be found in higher strata since they can swim up close to the surface. (6) Amphibians and reptiles would be buried higher than the fish, but as a rule, below the land animals. (7) Few land plants or animals would be in the lower strata. (8) The first land plants would be found where the amphibians were found. (9) Mammals and birds would generally be found in higher levels than reptiles and amphibians. (10) Because many animals tend to go in herds in time of danger, we would find herd animals buried together. (11) In addition, the larger, stronger animals would tend to sort out into levels apart from the slower ones (tigers would not be found with hippopotamuses). (12) Relatively few birds would be found in the strata, since they could fly to the highest points. (13) Few humans would be found in the strata. They would be at the top, trying to stay afloat until they died; following which they would sink to the surface of the sediments and decompose. One survey of 120 tribal groups in North, Central, and South America disclosed flood traditions among each of them (*International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 822). (1) There was general wickedness among men. (2) God saw that a flood was necessary. (3) One family with eight members was protected. (4) A giant boat was constructed. (5) The family, along with animals and birds, went into the boat. (6) The flood overwhelmed all those living on the earth. (7) The deluge covered all the earth for a time. (8) The boat landed in a high mountainous area. (9) Two or three birds were sent out first. (10) The people left the boat with all the animals. (11) The survivors worshiped God for sparing them. (12) A promise of divine favor was given that there would not be another worldwide flood of waters. Another survey of ancient Flood literature and legends is discussed by B. Nelson in The Deluge Story in Stone (1968). In this tabulation, the stories and writings of 41 different tribal and national groups were given. 41 groups, many of which were ancient races. ("A and B" indicate two different sub-groups; example: Fiji A and B.) Assyria-Babylonia (A and B), Alaska, Andaman Island, Asia Minor, Aztecs, Brazil, Cherokee, China, Cree, Egypt, Esquimaux (Canada), Fiji (A and B), Greece, Hawaii, India (A and B), Italy, Lapland, Lenni Lenape, Lithuania, Leward Islands, Mandan, Michoacan, Nicaragua, Papagos (Mexico), Persia (A and B), Peru, Pimas, Russia, Scandinavia (A and B), Sumatra, Syria, Takoe, Thlinkut (A and B), Toltecks, Wales. FLOOD CHRONOLOGY—In a chapter of this nature, we should provide the Biblical dating of the Genesis Flood. Although it is impossible to provide exact dates, in accordance with conservative Biblical chronology, Creation occurred at approximately 4004 B.C. (2,000 years before the birth of Christ). The Flood began 1,656 years later (1656 A.M. [anno mundi - year of the world]), which would be approximately 2348 B.C. That is the closest approximation we can arrive at. Here, according to Genesis 7 and 8, is a brief chronology of events during the Flood (the following figures are based on a thirty-day month): 40 days—Rain fell for forty days (7:4, 12, 17). 110 days—The waters rose and reached their greatest height at some time during or at the close of another 110 days (Genesis 7:24). 74 days—The "going and decreasing" of the waters occupied 74 days, then the tops of the mountains were seen (8:5, note the margin). 40 days—Forty more days passed and then Noah sent out the raven (8:6-7). 7 days—Seven days elapsed and then Noah sent out the dove for the first time, but the "waters were still on the face of the whole earth" (8:8; cf. 8:11, "other seven days"). 7 days—Seven days later, the second dove was sent out the second time and found the olive leaf, because "the waters were abated" (8:11). 7 days—After seven more days, the dove was sent out a third time and did not return, because "the waters were abated" (8:12). 29 days—The total so far is 285 days, but comparing the dates in 7:11 with the next event in 8:14 yields a total of 314 days. During that additional 29 days, Noah waited until "the waters were dried from off the earth" to remove the covering from the Ark. By that time the raven ceased to "go to and fro" (8:7). 57 days—From the time when the covering of the Ark was removed, to the day they and the animals left the Ark, 57 more days elapsed. When the "earth" was adequately "dry," Noah left the Ark (8:14). 371 days—From the time that the rain first began falling until the Ark was vacated, would be a total of 371 days. Terrible storms raged during the Flood. Immense quantities of water were flowing, grinding, wearing away surfaces. Massive wave action took its toll also. All this resulted in an astounding rate of erosion, which produced sediments which resulted in the thousands of feet of sedimentary rock strata which we see today. The vestiges argument was one of the few "scientific evidences" the evolutionists were able to present at the 1925 Scopes Trial. *Newman, a zoologist, made this statement on the witness stand for the defense: "There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities."—*Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), p. 268. *Robert Wiedersheim, a German disciple of Darwin’s, wrote a book in 1895 in which he listed 86 vestigial organs: including valves in the veins, the pineal gland, the thymus, bones in third, fourth, and fifth toes; lachrymal (tear) glands, and certain female organs. School textbooks as recent as the 1960s listed over 200 vestigial (useless) structures in the human body, including the thyroid and pituitary glands! The truth is that the theory of useless organs as a proof of evolution was based on rank 19th-century ignorance of those organs! No capable biologist today claims that any vestigial organs exist in human beings. But, unfortunately, that fact is not mentioned in the school textbooks. You will still find them talking about your "vestigial organs" which prove evolution! EIGHT USELESS ORGANS—Here are some of these supposedly useless organs in your body: 1 - The Tonsils. Here is one of those "worthless organs," which we now know to be needed. These two small glands in the back of your throat help protect you against infections. 2 - The Appendix. This is the classic "useless" organ of evolutionary theory. Science recently discovered that man needs this organ; it is not useless after all. It helps protect you from gastrointestinal problems in the lower ascending colon. The appendix is now known to be an important part of what is called the reticulo-endothelial system of the body. Like the tonsils, the appendix fights infection. According to *Science News, March 20, 1971, both the tonsils and appendix are now believed to guard us against Hodgkin’s disease. "For at least 2,000 years, doctors have puzzled over the function of the thymus gland. Modern physicians came to regard it, like the appendix, as a useless, vestigial organ, which had lost its original purpose, if indeed it ever had one. In the last few years, however . . men have proved that, far from being useless, the thymus is really the master gland that regulates the intricate immunity system which protects us against infectious diseases . . Recent experiments have led researchers to believe that the appendix, tonsils and adenoids may also figure in the antibody responses."—*"The Useless Gland that Guards Our Health," in Reader’s Digest, November 1966. "Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions."—*Encyclopedia Britannica Vo1. 8 (1946 ed.), p. 926. A SPECIAL PURPOSE—All this talk about useless organs calls our attention to the fact that everything within us has a special and important purpose. It also emphasizes that Someone very intelligent designed our bodies! We did not just "happen" into existence. Evolution teaches that all organs developed by chance, and that some eventually happened to have a reason for existence. Later on, quantities of these useless organs tagged along when one species evolved into a new one. Thus, if evolutionary theory were true, there ought to be large numbers of useless organs in your body! But scientific research discloses that there is not one! HINDERS SCIENCE—Reputable scientists now recognize that the evolutionary teaching of "vestigial organs" actually retarded scientific knowledge for decades. Instead of finding out what the appendix was for, it was called "vestigial" and was cut out. Researchers were told it was a waste of time to study any possible use for it. For the same reason, lots of children have had their tonsils removed, when they really needed them! "The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution . . An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures . . leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory."—*S.R. Scadding, "Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?" Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5 (May 1981), p. 394. *Ernst Haeckel was the man who, in 1866, first championed the strange idea of vestiges; that, during the first few embryonic months in the womb each of us passes through various stages in which we have gills like a fish and a tail like a lizard. He called it the Law of Recapitulation, or Biogenetic Law. "This theory is indispensable for the consistent completion of the non-miraculous history of creation."—*Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation (1876), Vol. 1, p. 348. By the mid-20th century, reputable scientists recognized that *Haeckel’s theory was without a scientific basis and ridiculous. But we are still waiting for the textbooks and popular magazines to learn the news. "Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation, facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science."—*Gavin De Beer, A Century of Darwin (1958). *Haeckel was later repeatedly charged with fraud. Wilhelm His, Sr. (1831-1904), a German embryologist, exposed the hoax in detail in an 1874 publication (Unsere Korperform) and concluded that Haeckel was dishonest and thereby discredited from the ranks of trustworthy research scientists. It is to be noted that Wilhelm His prepared the scholarly books on embryological development which are the foundation of all modern human embryology. Yet neither Haeckel’s fraud, nor His exposé, has ever been widely discussed in English scientific publications, and never in any publication for the public eye. "The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars."—*Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969 [Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University]. In 1915, *Haeckel’s fraudulent charts were even more thoroughly exposed as the cheats they actually were. "At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull. They quoted nineteen leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University, said that it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form. L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, called his distorted drawings a sin against scientific truthfulness deeply compromising to the public credit of a scholar."—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 112. It is of interest that, in 1997, *Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School in London, assembled a scientific team that photographed the growing embryos of 39 different species. In a 1997 interview in the London Times, *Richardson said this about Haeckel: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry . . What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t . . These are fakes."—*Michael Richardson, quoted in "An Embryonic Liar," The London Times, August 11, 1997, p. 14. FEAR TO SPEAK—Even though scientists may personally doubt evolutionary theory and the evidence for it, yet publicly they fear to tell the facts, lest it recoil on their own salaried positions. One fossil expert, when cornered publicly, hedged by saying the horse series "was the best available example of a transitional sequence." We agree that it is the best available example. But it is a devastating fact that the best available example is a carefully fabricated fake. "Dr. Eldredge [curator of the Department of Invertebrates of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City] called the textbook characterization of the horse series ‘lamentable.’ "When scientists speak in their offices or behind closed doors, they frequently make candid statements that sharply conflict with statements they make for public consumption before the media. For example, after Dr. Eldredge made the statement [in 1979] about the horse series being the best example of a lamentable imaginary story being presented as though it were literal truth, he then contradicted himself. ". . [On February 14, 1981] in California he was on a network television program. The host asked him to comment on the creationist claim that there were no examples of transitional forms to be found in the fossil record. Dr. Eldredge turned to the horse series display at the American Museum and stated that it was the best available example of a transitional sequence."—L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988), p. 82. OUGHT TO DISCARD IT—*David Raup, formerly Curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and now Professor of Geology at the University of Chicago, is a foremost expert in fossil study. He made this statement: "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. "By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information. What appeared to be a nice, simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. So Darwin’s problem [with the fossil record] has not been alleviated."—*David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979), p. 29.