| EVOLUTION OR CREATION?
By David E. Bishop The Theory Mutations Defined Variations Within a Species Do Beneficial Mutations Ever Occur? The Fossil Record Have Missing Links Been Found? Partially Developed Organs The Flood and the Geologic Column Dating Methods Ape Men? Conclusions There are many people who question Christianity and the entire Bible based on an erroneous idea that science has disproved both. If evolution is true and actual ape-men have been found, does that not disprove the Biblical account? There are some who try to combine the Biblical accounts and the theory of evolution by believing it was God’s method of creation. Evolution, which requires the death and an agonizing struggle for survival cannot be reconciled with Genesis where it clearly states death did not enter the world until after the fall of man and the curse upon creation. Some people believe that scientists are smarter than everyone else, which gives them far more qualified opinions. It is true that most scientists reject Christianity, but so do most lawyers, plumbers, and ditch diggers. It is not because of their science, but because of their fallen natures that do not want to acknowledge or submit to their Creator. A well known atheist once said, “What the theory of evolution has done is made atheism respectable.” There are many scientists who do believe in Biblical Christianity who have the same educational credentials and intelligence quotient as those who don’t. My point is, the findings of science in themselves do not compel anyone to believe in evolution. A fact, unfortunately, which is not known to so many because they have never bothered to actually investigate both sides of the issue. Since evolution is supposed to be a scientific theory, we should start out by defining science. As discussed in Chapter 3, for something to qualify as science it has to be both observable and repeatable. Since origins at the beginning of world history are neither, both evolution and creation lie outside the realm of true scientific inquiry. Nevertheless, the method we will use here will be as strictly scientific as possible. We will look at certain key areas of science that allegedly prove evolution, such as mutations, natural selection, and the fossil record. We will then look at the actual observable data in the present world in these areas and see whether evolution or creation fits the data best - without even using the Bible. THE THEORY In summary, the theory of evolution states that simple life forms arose spontaneously from a primordial soup containing the right chemicals. All life evolved from this single cell which gradually evolved into more complex and higher life forms through mutations that increased in complexity - with "natural selection" eliminating the bad and keeping the beneficial mutations. Invertebrates evolved into vertebrate fish, then into amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals and man. There are insurmountable problems with a “simple cell” arising spontaneously out of non-living chemicals. In Darwin’s time they thought the cell was simple. The DNA molecule contained in every cell, discovered long after Darwin, is anything but simple! A cell cannot reproduce itself without the DNA. The DNA had to be there first, and how can that have possibly come about by accident? That is infinitely less likely than a skyscraper rising spontaneously from a pile of bricks, since the DNA is far more complex than a skyscraper. Mathematicians have figured the probabilities to be practically zero! But bypassing that problem, for evolution to have taken place at all, two things are absolutely necessary. One, beneficial mutations must take place that go upward, from disorder to order, simplicity to complexity, that make an organism more survivable. If beneficial mutations do not happen, there is no evolution. Second, there must be some type of evidence in the fossil record of transitional forms between one kind and another documenting this change. After all, if this is the only method to account for the thousands upon thousands of species, one would expect to see a record of it in the past. Because the scope of this book is limited, the focus will mainly be on these two areas of mutations and the fossil record. MUTATIONS DEFINED Living organisms are structured around the DNA molecule in which all the information is recorded that is necessary to direct the growth of the organism. The DNA of the parents ensures transmission of the hereditary information of their DNA to their offspring. The DNA ensures that the progeny will be of the same kind as the parents. However, the variation potential within the DNA is very large allowing a wide range of differences, or else we would all look alike! Yet it ensures such variation will be within the fixed limits represented in the genetic systems of the parents. A good example of this is the many kinds of dogs and cats. A mutation is a deficient transmission of the DNA information and always results in a more disordered structure. Mutations are extremely rare, but when they do appear they are always in the direction of degeneration. This is empirically observed to always be true in the real world. VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES We must distinguish between a true mutation from adaptations within the species such as the famous white moth of England that turned into a grey moth during the industrial revolution. A man named Gregor Mendel proved by experimentation that variation, when it surfaces, is not a new characteristic. Rather it is one already latent in its DNA genetic system, but masked by a more dominant gene. His findings in genetics are universally true and are known as Mendel’s Law. He experimented with white and red pea plants and showed latent genes can be masked by more dominant genes, and yet resurface in populations. By isolating or killing off certain types, the latent genes can become dominant or the dominant genes latent. Darwin’s theory rested on the assumption that in such a case when a white plant appeared among the red plants that this was a new characteristic acquired by the new plant which had not been possessed by the parent. But Mendel proved that the characteristic had not been acquired, it had been present in the parents all the time, though masked by a more dominant gene. Even modern molecular biology further proves out Mendel's laws of inheritance, that normal variations do not produce higher degrees of complexity, but that variation is horizontal, not vertical. Even the experience of breeders proves there are limits to change within a species. It is possible to breed a horse for strength, a sheep for heavier wool, a dog with shorter legs, but not a horse with tusks or a dog with the legs of a cat. Each living thing has built-in limitations which prevent it from moving too far beyond the norm. It is variation of this sort unfortunately, which is still commonly offered as evidence of present day evolution. A classic example is the Peppered Moth of England. In the 1860s the moth was pale, though a rare dark form was known to exist. As tree trunks grew darker in the next 100 years due to the pollutants of the industrial revolution, the moth “evolved” from light to dark. The explanation for this phenomena was proven by Mendel’s Law. When trees were lighter, the darker moth stood out and were easy prey to predators. As trees grew darker, the lighter moths were killed off and became rarer. As the moths possessing the dominant lighter genes became less frequent in the gene pool, the darker moths then became more dominant and plentiful. After 100 years of natural selection, all that changed was the percentage of dark moths to light moths. Rather than prove evolution, this is a marvelous example of the Creator’s wisdom in instituting a system where an organism could maintain its identity as a specific kind, while at the same time allowed to adjust its characteristics (within limits) to changes in its environment. Otherwise, even slight changes in its environment might cause its extinction. Thus, “natural selection” is consistent with creation, as the gene pool already inherent in a species can adapt itself to changing environmental patterns. DO BENEFICIAL MUTATIONS EVER OCCUR? The whole theory of evolution stands or falls on this question of mutation. If mutations occur and are bad, it is impossible for evolution to progress. There must be some mechanism to produce the required upward complexity. What has always been true in over 100 years of close scientific observa-tion and scrutiny, is mutations are always for the worse! An extreme minority appear to be neutral, but even in that are mistakes and add no new genetic information. They result in a less ordered structure, in the direction of degeneration, and in less survivability, not more. A deformed child is an example of a mutation - certainly not a benefit! For a kind not to produce a like kind, but through beneficial mutations produce a different, better and more complex kind violates all the laws of genetics as they are known to operate at the present time. That is, in the real observable world rather than the realm of “theory.” This is admitted by geneticists after 70 years of intensive experimentation. During that time they have induced thousands of mutations in various organisms, yet have never been able to come up with one convincing case of a mutation that was clearly beneficial. Here are the facts: The phenomenon of a truly beneficial mutation that adds new genetic information, one which is known to be a mutation and not merely a latent characteristic already present in the genetic material but lacking previous opportunity for expression, has yet to be documented! Some evolutionists doubt they occur at all. Christopher Wills, an evolutionist, in an article entitled "Genetic Load" in the Scientific American states: Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity: they also affect viability, and to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism’s central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing? And certainly, if one mutation is harmful, the net effect of many mutations would be even more lethal, making it impossible to even talk about a net effect. Another staunch evolutionist, H.J. Muller, in an article in the American Scientist (Vol. 38, Jan 1950, p. 35) states: 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. One may ask, why do they not just say “100%” instead of “well over 99%?” The problem is if you said 100%, evolution folds. This permits the elusive remainder of supposedly less than 1% to be argued about. THE FOSSIL RECORD The fossil record is of the utmost importance since it is the only physical evidence of what life forms lived in the past. Biology can only provide theories, and as we have seen, the theories concerning beneficial mutations, without which there is no evolution, are severely lacking. The evidence necessary to establish evolution would be fossils showing a gradual step by step progression from lower animal life to higher and more complex forms. This should be evident by the presence in the fossil record of thousands upon thousands of transitional forms. The evidence a creationist would expect to find is fossils showing complex life appearing suddenly, with no fossil evidence of a gradual development. The earliest fossils are found in the Cambrian rock strata. Billions and billions of highly complex multicellular forms of life, such as corals, worms, jellyfish, brachiopods, sea urchins, etc. appear suddenly out of nowhere, with no signs of gradual development from lower forms. The sedimentary rock strata that precedes the Cambrian called Pre-Cambrian, is totally void of any fossils. This is sedimentary rock, very suitable for the preserving of fossils, yet there are no fossils of any kind. The appearance of these fossils are so startling that it is commonly called the "Cambrian explosion.” According to evolutionists, it would have required 1.5 billion years for these animals to have evolved from simpler life forms. Yet there is not a single shred of evidence for this. Not a single indisputable “pre-multicellular” fossil has been found in a rock supposedly older than Cambrian anywhere in the world! How can there be 1.5 billion years of missing evidence? How can trilobites, jelly fish, sea urchins, and other complex invertebrates just appear out of nowhere? Billions times billions of these creatures would have lived and died, but none can be found. This leaves evolutionist Gaylord Simpson calling it the "great mystery of the history of life." So we see right at the beginning of the evolutionary scenario, the evidence is directly contrary to what we would predict. Yet what greater evidence for creation can there be than an abrupt explosion of complex creatures without a trace of ancestors? This same absence of evidence is characteristic of the rest of the fossil record. The next level of evolution is the evolving of these multicellular invertebrate sea creatures into vertebrates. Evolutionist say it would have taken 100 million years for a fish to have evolved from an invertebrate. Yet the vertebrates appear suddenly in the fossil record, with not a single transitional form that is part invertebrate, part vertebrate. Supposedly it took another 50 million years for a fish to evolve into an amphibian. But again, there are no transitional forms, amphibians appear just as suddenly in the fossil record as do the fish and invertebrate creatures. Not a single fossil with a part fin - part foot appendage has ever been found. This is true between every single major plant and animal kind. There are still no organisms intermediate between the amphibian and the reptile, or reptile and the mammal. The fossils only show perfected kinds, with no halfway creature between one kind and another. And all appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully developed, with not a single shred of evidence of a gradual development from what are supposed to be the previous creatures. HAVE MISSING LINKS BEEN FOUND? Let us turn our attention now to those few and far between candidates that were once heralded as possible missing links, but all of which now are rejected by most evolutionists. We will just take two of the most famous examples, the horse series and Archaeopteryx. The famous horse series is second only to the Archaeopteryx as the most popular fossil evidence cited to prove evolution. The common picture in textbooks shows a series of small horses arranged to appear they evolved into larger horses. This proves nothing, as there are small and large horses today. As a matter of fact, you can arrange different kinds of antelopes, gazelles, zebras, and elands in a series as well. It may look sequential but it certainly does not prove one evolved from the other. They are all different kinds. Furthermore, one of the earliest supposed horses used in some series was called a hyracotherium which was not a horse at all, but probably a rock badger. Many evolutionists readily admit the dubious nature of the artificial horse series. Evolutionist Prof. G.A. Kerkut (Department of Physiology and Biochemistry, University of Southhampton) states: The evolution of the horse provides one of the keystones in the teaching of evolutionary doctrine, though the actual story depends to a large extent upon who is telling it and when the story is being told. In fact one could easily discuss the evolution of the story of the evolution of the horse. The story of horse evolution may be clear in museums and textbooks, but not according to the fossils themselves. Remember that horses are thought to be the best or next best evidence of evolution! Even though it has been proven wrong by committed evolutionists, horse series charts are still being used in science books as factual proof of the theory of evolution. The Archaeopteryx is the most famous of the fossils for evidence of evolution. Five fossils have been found, all in the same site in Germany. It has bird like features - feathers, wings, and a bill. It also has reptile like features, a long bony tail, claws on the wings, and teeth in the bill. But there is a world of difference between Archaeopteryx and reptiles. Mainly, it had wings, feathers, and it flew! The fact that it has claws on it wings does not prove it had reptilian ancestry. There are two living birds today that have claws on the wings, the familiar ostrich and the touraco of Africa. And the fact it had feathers not scales proves it is a bird. All paleontologists (paleontology is the study of fossils) now acknowledge that Archaeopteryx was a true bird, an extinct bird with claws on its wings. A real transitional form between a reptile and bird would be half forelimbs turning into wings. Which brings up another insurmountable problem. PARTIALLY DEVELOPED ORGANS Darwin held that as any structure evolves, every intermediate stage must be of advantage to the species immediately in order for it to be retained by natural selection. This is because natural selection is a "mindless process" with no idea where it is going, and so it cannot plan ahead or conceive of a goal. Therefore, every change must have an immediate advantage and not be part of a planned series leading to some desirable end. To use an example of a gasoline engine - what good would the individual part of a piston, cylinder, engine block, spark plug, or carburetor be all by itself? To be a functional engine, all parts must be present at the same time. How could an organ as complicated as the human eye with its rods and cones, pupil, lens, iris, cornea, and optic nerve develop bit by bit not knowing it was going to be an eye? Light comes through a hole called a pupil and a lens over the pupil focuses the light on the back of the retina like a movie screen producing an image. Certain cells sensitive to color by day and others cells by night assist in the process. Then complex nerves pick up the image and causes it to travel to the visual part of the brain where we see something. What use would there be of a hole in the front of the eye to allow light to pass through if there are no cells at the back of the eye to receive it? What use is a lens with no hole? What use is the lens forming an image at the back of the eye without a nervous system to interpret it. How could a visual nervous system have evolved before there was an eye to give it information? Its evolution is clearly impossible. Evolutionist Frank B. Salisbury, in an article in American Biology Teacher (September, 1971, p.338), admits: My last doubt concerns so-called parallel evolution.... Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. Its bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim. Now our logical choices for the human eye are limited. To say it came into being all at once is clearly impossible from an evolutionary perspective for it would mean there was a Creator. To say it evolved gradually, the only other option, violates evolution’s own law that natural selection is a mindless process with no idea where it is "going," and cannot plan ahead or conceive of a goal. Each and every minute change must have an immediate advantage and not be part of a planned series leading to some desirable end - for that would mean an intelligent designer. Clearly, each step in the development of the eye, from the pupil to the optic nerve would be totally useless in and of itself, and no advantage at all to the species survivability, without all the other parts being there at the same time. Now if the evolution of just one organ as the eye is clearly impossible, how much less with even more complex organs as the entire human body and brain? Furthermore, since each minute change has to be an immediate benefit to make a creature more survivable (or it will not be retained by natural selection), what good would a half-developed anything be in the fight for survival? Each evolutionary change is supposed to be gradual, because the idea of a fish’s fin turning into the foot of an amphibian, or a forelimb turning into a wing overnight, is as likely as a frog turning into a prince with a magic wand. So how could a fish, with a fin half developed into the leg of an amphibian, swim? Or an amphibian with a half-fin, half-leg appendage walk? It could neither swim nor walk as well (if at all), making it less survivable and likely to get caught by predators. What good is a partially developed forelimb for a wing? It cannot run and cannot fly! Evolution says it would have taken millions of years for such a change. How could these creatures have survived the millions of years between being a fully functional organ? Furthermore, why is there not a single one of these “halfway” creatures in the fossil record? We have in our museums today a quarter of a million different fossil species represented by tens of millions of fossils. If evolution is true, there should be millions of transitional forms. If evolution did not happen we should see systematic gaps. All we find in the fossil record are great gaps between all the basic kinds which all appear abruptly in the record fully formed. And isn’t it interesting that the same gaps that exist in the fossil record are the same gaps between species in the modern world today! If evolution is true we should see one kind gradually blending into another where it would be difficult to tell where one kind ends and the other begins - and all these creatures should still be living! Why do fishes, amphibians, reptiles, and apes continue to live together with man in the present world? If we still have the ape, why not the ape-man, who is supposedly a "higher form" than the ape? According to the evolutionary theory of natural selection and survival of the fittest, the more advanced form survives and the inferior form dies out. Therefore the ape should be gone and the ape-man still living. Are there any transitional forms at all? Is there an airtight case for at least one? Would an evolutionist, if it got right down to it, use Archaeopteryx, the horse series, or the ape-men fossils we are about to study as a definite transitional form? Lets see what evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson has to say, in a letter written April 10, 1979 to another scientist named Luther D. Sunderland. Dr Patterson is the Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London. With these credentials, if anyone has a qualified opinion, he certainly does. ...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 visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, prove it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader... 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. Space prevents me from listing scores of the most prominent evolutionary scientists who all admit there are no transitional forms. THE FLOOD AND THE GEOLOGIC COLUMN When an animal, fish, or any other creature dies, it does not form into a fossil. It usually decomposes completely. Certain conditions are necessary for fossil formation. The process begins when an animal or plant gets buried. This often occurs under a heavy load of water borne sediment such as mud or sand. The load of sediment kills the creature and keeps its remains together. Often the soft parts rot away, and only the hard parts, bones, teeth, and shells get preserved. As the sediment traps this life the once living plants and animals usually become like rock. Without rapid sediment burial, there can be no fossil. Most scientists agree that flooding provides the best way to start forming fossils. A flood carries enough sediment to bury the creature deeply so it cannot get out and preserves it from scavengers. Many fossil graveyards include remains of thousands, and even billions of life forms all washed together under the same sediment load. There is no process currently going on in the world today to account for the billions upon billions of fossils in existence. Many evolutionists admit there is much evidence for massive flooding of the continents. At least 75% of the earth’s surface, including the tops of most mountains, are covered with sedimentary rock. The final quarter is covered with igneous rock. Igneous rock are those that have solidified from a molten state, as from lava flows. Sedimentary rock is laid down by water. Fossilized fish and clams have been found at the high elevations of mountain ranges, even at the foot hills of the Himalayan mountains near Mt. Everest. There is much evidence that shows these layers were deposited within a very short time, not gradually in millions of years. There are polystrate fossils, which are fossil animals and tree trunks that are found extending through many layers of strata - layers which geologists would have said had millions of years separating them. The top parts are as well preserved as the bottom showing that the whole animal or tree was buried by rapidly deposited layers of sediment. One of the many examples of polystrate fossil trees is one near Edinburgh that was over 80 feet long intersecting 12 different beds or layers, and from its uniform fossilization, it was buried rapidly. These polystrate fossils are found all over, including the United States. The geologic column as seen in textbooks displays rock strata of different ages with different types of life forms. At the bottom of the column is the most simple multicellular life forms, graduating to vertebrate fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals in the higher strata. One cannot go out and find the complete geologic column anywhere, because it does not exist. It is an “idea” that is based on the order in which fossils are usually found. The amazing thing is that the order of fossils in the geological column corresponds perfectly with a world wide flood. If every living creature on earth died and was buried under sediment in a massive catastrophe today, where would we find them in a geological column relative to sea level? We must assume each creature was living in the same place of its natural habitat, and a sudden flood with massive sediment would kill and bury it right where it normally lived. The creatures that live at the bottom of the sea, the lowest of all, are multicellular invertebrates, such as jellyfish, worms, corrals, and sea urchins. Higher up would be the vertebrate fish. Right at sea level would be amphibians. Reptiles who are more mobile than amphibians would be slightly higher. Mammals, who can live at higher elevations would be at the top. So rather than the geological column depicting different creatures that lived in different times separated by millions of years - it simply shows the normal order of creatures all living together contemporaneously. A creationist would predict exactly what we see in the geologic column because we all live together today in that same order relative to sea level. This also includes the dinosaurs. Most of the great beds of dinosaur bones are found in a manner consistent with a massive flood. Dinosaur fossils are almost always found with scores and scores of skeletons all tumbled together and intertwined with one another. All died and were buried together at the same time in sedimentary (water laid) rock in a massive catastrophe. Evidence also indicates that dinosaurs and man lived together contemporaneously. Pictographs of dinosaurs have been found on cave and canyon walls. Dinosaur like creatures are even mentioned in the Bible (Job 40:15-19). The evidence indicates dinosaurs and man lived contemporaneously in separate habitats just as large wild animals and man do today. This now brings us to the subject of dating. How were the ages that supposedly represent millions of years separating the rock layers arrived at? Rocks don’t come with little tags telling us how old they are. DATING METHODS Radiometric dating is one of the methods used to establish age. Two of the most common are the Uranium-lead and Potassium-argon methods which are used to date non-living matter. In each of these systems, the parent element is the element undergoing decay, and as it does so it gradually is changed into the daughter element. It has been established that a definite length of time is required for half the atoms of a radioactive substance to decay. But the problem with these methods is they use completely unverifiable assumptions. How do you know how much parent element and daughter element was in the rock to begin with? To say there was 100% parent element and 0% daughter element is an outright guess. No one was there when it was first formed, it may have initially came into being with some daughter and parent element present. There is no way to tell if the material has lost or gained any parent or daughter product from its environment. It is unreasonable to assume the decay rate has always been in the past what it is today. Every process in nature operates at a rate influenced by numerous environmental factors. In the process of radiometric decay, for example, extreme temperature change alters the rate significantly. Proof that these assumptions are wrong is evidenced by numerous examples of incredible inaccuracies. The same rocks from the Apollo 16 lunar mission have been dated using 3 different radio metric dating methods. The dates ranged 7 billion to 18 billion years on the same rocks. The same rock from an Apollo 11 mission was dated 4.6 billion to 8.2 billion years. The Journal of Geophysical Research, (volume 73, July 15 1968) reported that lava rocks formed in 1800 and 1801 in Hawaii were dated by the Potassium-argon method. The dating showed an age of formation from 160 million to 3 billion years ago! Another example reported (Science, volume 162, Oct 1968) that volcanic rocks known to be 200 years old were dated by radiometric methods and showed ages of 12 to 21 million years. Keeping this in mind, in the National Geographic June 1973 issue, there is an important article called "skull 1470" telling about the "ape-man" skull found by Richard Leaky. It states the age of the skull was 2.8 million years old. This age was determined by dating the volcanic material the skull was found in using the Potassium-argon method. The same method that showed 168 year old volcanic rocks in Hawaii to be 3 billion years old! Radiocarbon methods are used to date organisms that were once living. Every living organism, plant or animal, contains a certain amount of carbon 14. When an organism dies, its carbon 14 intake ceases and the radioactive element begins to decay back to nitrogen. By measuring the amount of carbon 14 in a sample, a date can be determined. The more carbon 14 present the younger, the less the older. The same assumptions have to be made here as with all the other radiometric methods. Consequently, there are also examples of incredible inaccuracy. Living mollusks have been dated by the carbon 14 method and assigned an age of 2300 years old. (As recorded in Science, volume 130, Dec 11, 1959.) Freshly killed seals were dated by the carbon 14 method and an age was assigned at 1300 years old; Mummified seals that had been dead for 30 years were dated 4600 years old. (These results were recorded in the Antarctic Journal of the United States, volume 6, 1971.) These radiometric dating techniques are so unreliable that they have never been the main criteria for dating a rock strata in determining geological age. Proof of this is the geological ages as seen in the geologic column were worked out long before anyone heard of radiometric dating. The main method used to date the rocks is by the fossil found in them, not the radiometric date. If there is a conflict between a radiometric date and the date assigned to a fossil in the geological column, the radiometric date is thrown out unless it happens to coincide. If you were to find a multicellular invertebrate fossil, such as a trilobite, and bring it to a scientist for a date, he would tell you it is 600-250 million years old. He would say this because the assumed theory of evolution believes it evolved 600-250 million years ago. Lets say you were to discover a layer of earth and that you are interested in finding out when it was formed. A geologist would examine the layer until he found a fossil and date the layer by that fossil. If he found a trilobite, he would date the rock 600-250 million years old. Notice the incredible circular reasoning. The fossil is used to date the rock, and the rock is used to date the fossil. Evolutionists admit they do this: 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 that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results (J.E. O'Rouke, American Journal of Science, Vol. 276, 1976). We now must come to the question, if the Cambrian period of invertebrate multicellular life is 600-250 million years old, where did this date originally come from? Why is the Cenozoic age 70-5 million years old and the Mesozoic age 200-70 million years old? For that matter, where did all the dates originate on the geological column? They all came from the few people who believed in evolution 150 years ago who invented the geological column, the names of each age, and the dates for each age and group of fossils. Where did those who believed in evolution 150 years ago get these dates from? They MADE THEM UP! They are not based on any factual basis. To go from an ameba to a man in 100 or 1000 years would be considered absurd. But given enough time, it is assumed, anything is possible. The millions and millions of years chosen for each age are completely arbitrary, and total, outright, guesses. Scientifically speaking, no one has proof for any dates prior to the beginning of written records, about 4000 to 5500 years ago, at most. Archeology, which is based on observable data rather than a “theory” as is evolution, shows that real history is available only for the past few thousand years. The beginning of written records that are verifiable date from the first dynasty in Egypt between 2500-3500 BC, almost 5000 years ago. Many different lines of historical evidence point back to a time about 5000 years ago as dating the beginning of true civilization. Professor Libby learned this when he tried to verify his carbon-14 method. He said: The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisers informed us that history extended back only to 5000 years... You read statements in books that such and such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established. APE-MEN? There is much said about the ape-men. Most of the general public regard the idea that actual ape-men have been found as a matter of fact. National Geographic magazine at least several times a year has articles about ape- men. Newspapers, other popular books, not to mention school textbooks always discuss the indisputable fact that mans ancestors go back to apes. As a young man I remember looking at pictures of ape-men in my school textbook. I had always assumed, as most everyone else, that these pictures were based on actual skeletons that were found. When I began to research the issue myself I was quite surprised by what I found. Upon viewing the actual evidence for the various candidates, it was quite evident that an ape-man has never been found. All that has been found are apes that are true apes, men that are true men, and more commonly, bits of bones and teeth arbitrarily reconstructed to look like ape-men. Most often in these latter cases, a few teeth and bones that could fit in a man’s hand inspire an artist’s pen to construct an entire ape-man. There is powerful motivation for this. Discovery of an “apeman” skull results in instant fame and fortune. In addition, it results in up to ten thousand dollars per lecture to countless institutions by the discoverer and millions of dollars in additional grant money ensuring future employment for years to come. While I don’t believe that all scientists engage in deliberate deception, many have such strong biases that they interpret data to fit their preconceptions. The evidence will speak for itself. We will look at the various candidates for missing links, and look at the actual evidence for each one. • Ramapithecus In 1964, David Pilbeam and Elwin Simons found pieces of a jaw and some teeth that appeared to be ape teeth located near the jaw. They reconstructed it into an egg shape pattern. But there was a problem. There was not enough of the jaw to know if it belonged in an egg shaped pattern. But they put it together like that for just one reason. An ape jaw has a U shape, and human jaw has an egg shape. What they now had was ape teeth put together in a pattern of a human jaw. A few years later, Pilbeam, Leaky, and others found more pieces of jaws, and complete jaws, which all had the U shaped pattern of an ape. Few consider it now to be an ape-man. Pilbeam himself said in an article in 1984 that he had come to believe that Ramapithecus walked upright solely on the basis of fragments of the jaws and teeth and has now acknowledged that this conclusion was based more on his preconceived ideas than the actual data. Yet Ramapithecus is still found in textbooks as indisputable evidence for human evolution. He appears fully erect, with half-man, half-ape features. There is not a single word on what this “picture” is actually based on. • Australopithecines This is the name assigned to several finds of a species, including “Lucy,” skull “1470” and others. Skull 1470 was found by Richard Leakey in over 300 pieces. He had to have help putting it together. Needless to say, when you have over 300 pieces to put together you can pretty much make it look any way you want. He declared this to be an ape-man. But as more and more scientists began to examine it, especially those that are experts in the field, they determined it was a type of extinct ape. Lord Zuckerman and a research team, all evolutionists, studied these fossils for over 15 years and they concluded that all Australopithecine fossils were nothing but apes! Nevertheless, despite what the leading experts in the field of evolution say, textbooks at high school and college level still contain drawings of ape-men called Australopithecines. • Java Man (also called Pithecanthropus man) Dr. Dubios found Java man in Java while digging among bones of extinct animals. Fragments were picked up, part of a skull cap, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and 3 molar teeth. The skull cap was from an ape, the leg bone was human. With an ape skull cap and a human leg bone, Dr. Dubios claimed he found an ape-man, and most other scientists agreed. However, the real story is that he picked up these various pieces of bones in a 50 foot area. He found the human leg bone 46 feet away from the ape skull cap. Furthermore, he found that human leg bone one year after he found the skull cap. What makes it even worse is the leg bone was next to a river in a gravel bed that was deposited by that river. In other words, the river brought the leg bone to that location. On what basis did he determine these parts belonged to the same creature? He also found 2 fully human skulls nearby, but he did not admit this until 30 years later! But finally, before his death, Dr. Dubois himself admitted that all he found was a large Gibeon. Yet Java man still exists in every textbook at both high school and college level as evidence for mans ancestry. It is significant to note that the textbooks do not mention the human leg bone was found almost 50 ft away from the skull cap, in a river water borne sediment more than a year later, nor of the other two human skulls. • Neanderthal Man The first skeleton was found in France in 1857. Pathologists have proven that Neanderthal man was nothing more than an ordinary man, with a vitamin D deficiency and arthritis. His skeletal structure is similar to modern man and his cranial capacity is the same or exceeds modern man. It has been said that if he were given a shave, a haircut and a bath and dressed in a business suit, and were to walk down one of our city streets, he would be given no more attention than any other individual. All anthropologists now believe he was fully human. • Cro-Magnon Man Complete skeletons of Cro-Magnon man have been found. His cranial capacity is equal to or more than modern man. He is also equal in physique and skeletal structure, so what is the difference between him and modern man? There isn’t any difference! • Peking Man - All the evidence has disappeared. • Nebraska Man In 1922, near a farm in Nebraska, Dr. Harold Cook found a single tooth, and from that single tooth he decided he had found an ape man. It was declared by Henry Fairfield Osborn, one of the most eminent paleontologists of that day, and several other authorities, to combine the characteristics of the chimpanzee, Pithecanthropus (like Java man) and modern man. At the famous Scopes evolution trial in Tennessee, Nebraska Man evidence was presented by the foremost scientific authorities of the day as proof of evolution. He allegedly lived one million years ago. They scoffed at all who tried to challenge their dogmatic proclamations. However, five years later, in 1927, they found more fossils in the same area, and found that Nebraska Man was only a pig! One must question the powerful bias that caused the most educated scientists of that day, with credentials just as good as those today, to declare they found an ape-man based on one single tooth. • Piltdown Man Dr. Charles Dawson in 1912 was digging around in Piltdown England. He found a human skull cap, and an apes jaw with teeth similar to human teeth. This appeared in the British Museum of Natural history for 40 yrs, and it was the consensus of the worlds greatest authorities that Piltdown man was indeed an authentic link in the evolution of man. Piltdown man appeared in textbooks for 50 years. But someone in 1953 started trying to get an age for the skull and the jaw. Fossils absorb fluoride, yet the jawbone had practically none, so it could not have been a fossil. Further examination showed the bones had been treated with iron salts to make them appear old. The teeth were also filed down to look like human teeth. This fake appeared in the most prestigious museum in Britain for over 40 years. It was silently removed from the textbooks. The ease with which this fraud fooled the world’s greatest scientific authorities shows the powerful influence of preconceived ideas by those who believe in evolution. SOME CONCLUSIONS Many of these examples should expose the false idea that many people believe of scientists. Their findings may be accurate when it comes to measurable and observable data that is truly within the realm of scientific inquiry. But when it comes to “theories” they do not have any more of a qualified opinion than anyone else. They have the same biases as non-scientists. From the above examples of ape-men, we can see that strong biases tend to interpret the data, rather than the data determining the basis for belief. I have often wondered why many evolutionists believe man originated in Africa despite archeological evidence which conclusively shows civilization began in the Middle East. The reason is obvious. They believe man originated in Africa because that is where we find apes. So they go to where apes live, dig around and find bones of apes that died, and keep piecing things together in attempts to find anything that has the slightest semblance of fitting their presuppositions. With no evidence for mutations producing higher kinds, and no evidence in the fossil record of transitional forms, there is no evidence for evolution. The idea that the evidence for evolution is so powerful that no one has any choice but to believe is completely misguided. But let us have an evolutionist tell us. Dr. Lyall Watson (in Vol 90 of Science Digest, May 1982, p.44) admits: The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin. |