Evolutionary Tales Exposed: Part 9 – The Fossil Records

Next we will consider the fossil record. If there is anything that can tangibly “prove” the theory of evolution, the fossil record would be the most likely. Fossils can of course be seen, handled, and examined. It has been instilled into this generation that the age of anything can be absolutely proven. As we have seen from our study of the various dating methods, there is very little that is absolute in the `science` of dating. The methods and results are at best questionable. Recent advances in science has shown that there are questions regarding things once thought absolute. I have read that scientists have discovered that the speed of light is slowing down. There is evidence that atomic clocks do not run at a constant rate. They, too, are slowing down. Concerning the fossil record, let me read what a leading scientist has said:

“The fossil record reveals the absence of life forms in the lower 2/3rds of the earth`s crust. Then, suddenly, an abundance of advanced life forms appear. The oldest rocks in which indisputable fossils are found are those of the so-called `Cambrien Period.` The Cambrien [sp] Period sedimentary deposits contain BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of fossils of HIGHLY ADVANCED and HIGHLY DEVELOPED life forms. Every major invertebrate form is found in the Cambrien rock layer. The complexity of these advanced life forms is so great that evolutionists claim that it would have taken 1,500,000,000 years to `evolve`.”

Shell Graveyard By lowfatbrains

If the theory of evolution is `true`, why do we find NO life forms in the rock layers underneath the Cambrien rock layer? If evolution produced these advanced life forms, where is the evidence that these fossils `evolved` from more simple life forms? Where are the fossils that these advanced life forms `evolved` from? If you believe in creation, the fossil record fits in perfectly. This is exactly what you would expect if this world, and the creatures in it, all began at one point in time. You would expect a sudden appearance of advanced creatures, virtually at the same time. What viewpoint does the fossil record support, evolution or creation? The answer should be obvious to anyone except a close-minded evolutionist.

“Not a single indisputable, multicellular fossil has ever been found in pre-Cambrien rock.”

Charles Darwin, regarded by many as the `father` of the theory of evolution, once said:

“NOT ONE CHANGE OF SPECIES INTO ANOTHER IS ON RECORD. We cannot prove that a single species has ever changed.” – Charles Darwin

To illustrate the theory of evolution: FROG + MAGIC WAND = PRINCE  (Fairy Tale) – FROG + 200,000,000 YEARS = PRINCE  (Evolution)

Another quote, this one from George Gaylord Simpson, a champion of the theory of evolution, follows. After stating that nowhere in the world is a trace of a fossil that would close the considerable gap between ASSUMED (by evolutionists) fossils of the horse species and its ASSUMED (by evolutionists) ancestral order, Mr. Simpson says:

“This is true of ALL of the 32 orders of mammals. The earliest and most primitive known members of EVERY order of mammal ALREADY HAVE the basic ordinal characters and in NO CASE is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed.”

Now that`s the candid admission of a man who was one of the champions of the theory of evolution. What scientists have done is to go around the world, gathering assumed horse fossils, sometimes from the wrong strata. Then they have come up with this `evolutionary tree` of the horse species. Most people have seen this `ancestral tree` of the horse species. We have been led to believe that this `tree` is absolute, indisputable fact. In actuality, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a merely a hypothetical exercise, and it is NOT based on sound research.

Because the fossil record is so void of transitional fossils, evolutionists have come up with a new theory, called `Punctuated Equilibrium`. This is a theory that my daughter at ——– college has been bombarded with. She is a pre-med student, which of course involves the study of life sciences. First let me define `equilibrium` as we are using it here. Evolutionists now claim that as a new species `evolves`, there are periods of `equilibrium` of from one (1) to ten (10) million years during which some species do not change at all. Evolutionists claim that this is the reason that we find an abundance of advanced fossils in one time period, such as in the Cambrien rock layer. Next we are asked to believe that, after millions of years of inactivity in their `evolution`, this supposed species suddenly becomes “punctuated”. This means that after all those years of inactivity, the assumed species changes TO ANOTHER SPECIES in a few thousand years.

Fossil ammonites By ilerdino

Since a few thousand years is so small an amount of time in the `evolutionary process`, the evolutionists claim that this is the reason that no transitional life forms are found. This is a very popular theory nowadays. What is the evidence for this theory? There is really NO evidence of gradualism. What they are saying is that the evidence for punctuated equilibrium is, no evidence for the old theory. Since the absence of transitional fossils disputes the validity of the theory of evolution, they have now devised this new theory, also based on no evidence, to `patch up` the lack of evidence for the original theory of evolution. I am amazed at how this theory has been accepted, and how it is being taught in our colleges. It is a ridiculous theory, based on no evidence. But it illustrates one thing clearly. It clearly indicates the BANKRUPTCY OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

There is no evidence for the theory of evolution, so man has now accepted ANOTHER theory that has no evidence in fact. Needless to say, the evolutionist cannot explain how or why this hypothetical phenomena `happened`. Jay Gould, one of the authors of this theory, has recently expressed hope for the appearance of the “Hopeful Monster” theory. This theory states that a reptile laid an egg, and a bird hatched from it. This is
the only hope for the theory of evolution, because there are NO transitional fossils in the fossil record. Dr. Ethridge, the curator of the British Museum, has remarked:

“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is SHEER NONSENSE, not founded on observation, and wholly unsupported by the facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all of this great museum there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of any species.”

I suggest that Dr. Ethridge is as qualified to make that judgment as anyone else in the world. He has millions of fossils at his disposal. That seems to me to be the honest statement of a scientist who has truly investigated the theory of evolution, and has found it to be totally lacking in credibility. There are about 250,000 species of life that have been discovered in fossil form. Yet out of this great collection of fossils, Dr. Ethridge is stating that NOT ONE has been found that supports the theory of evolution. I hope you will think about the gravity of his statement.

Next we will imagine a mental picture of a man sitting on an imaginary chair. The chair is not really `there`, but the man is sitting on it. The poem, illustrative of the theory of evolution, goes:

As I was sitting in my chair, I knew it had no bottom there
Nor arms or legs, but I just sat, Ignoring little things like that

That is a good description of the many shortcomings of the theory of evolution and its attendant theory, the theory of `punctuated equilibrium`.

If you will go up to Glenrose [sp] in north central Texas, you can find dinosaur footprints and human footprints in the same rock layer. How did they get there together? The evolutionists tell us that the last dinosaur died 30,000,000 years before the first `true human` was born. Did that mud stay moist for 30,000,000 years, so that the dinosaur footprint and the human footprint would appear in the same rock layer? Of course not. That would be too ridiculous a statement, even for an evolutionist.

Fossil By ardochypikeskyesam

I`ve seen a movie that was made on those fossils at Glenrose [sp]. It shows the footprints of several dinosaurs and then it shows a human footprint trail going right across it. Now these human footprints are not very clear. In fact, the only very clear human footprint in the collection is not there. Instead, there is a large square where someone chiseled the human footprint out of the rock and sold it to a tourist. But you can see the trail of the person walking there, and if you will use a composite of those footprints you can produce a perfect human footprint. There are some that show the toes very clearly, some that show the heel very clearly, and so on. In fact, on one of the footprints, you can see that this human slipped on the mud, and slid about three feet. Where his foot stopped, you can see a perfect outline of this human`s toes.

If you want to reassure yourself, look at your foot sometime. If you study this, you will discover that there is no animal that qualifies as having possibly those prints. That includes apes, bears, or anything else. The human footprint is very unique. Interestingly, in the movie I mentioned above, these human footprints were shown to both evolutionists and creationists. Their comments were very revealing. As you might expect, the creationists came up with the conclusion that was logical. The prints were what they appear to be. No mystery. Just more proof of creationism.

The evolutionists, as might be expected, agreed that the dinosaur tracks were obviously genuine, but they expressed doubts as to whether those `really were` human footprints. Do you see the difference in interpretation of data? The evolutionists disagreed, not because the proof was inconclusive, but because their preconceived beliefs prevented them from accepting the data. Of what value is a scientist who will not accept data unless it agrees with his preconceived views?

Most people have seen dinosaur footprints, or has at least seen photographs of dinosaur footprints. Everyone, even laymen, know what a dinosaur footprint looks like. Of course, everyone knows what a human footprint looks like. Thus, even an inexperienced layman could conclude that 2 + 2 = 4. Yet these `scientists`, these evolutionists, could not make the same conclusion. Why? Their prejudice would not allow them to. Their `training` and `knowledge` precluded the obvious conclusion.

Source

The Theory of Evolution: This lecture composed by Dr. L., D.D.S (Freeware)

Reading Sources: First moon walk disproved evolutionary theory | Where’s the proof for evolution? | Darwin himself said there was no proof! | Can Evolution Produce an Eye? | There are NO Fossils to Show Even One Animal Turning into Another! | Is Evolution a Theory, Fact or Law? Or None of the Above? | There’s a Law Against Evolution–It’s Called the Second Law of Thermodynamics! | Evolutionists Say Mutations are Good–are They? | What About the Human “Tail”?