Although no two people can agree on what evolution actually is, they are all certain that the six twenty-four hour days as recorded in Genesis is false.' "Evolution means the changing of one kind of animal or plant in to another. "The evolutionary scientist generally holds that he will believe nothing that cannot be demonstrated in a laboratory."' To begin with, they are unable to prove evolution, so why do they hold to it?
A theistic evolutionist claims evolution agrees with the Bible. According to them, each of the six creation days in Genesis means 1,000,000 years. Since each day was composed of daylight and darkness, logically, one-half of that day, or 500,000 years, would be darkness. Since plants cannot live without sunlight, there would be no plants the next day. Also hundreds of plants are dependent on insects for reproduction. Yet insects weren't created until two million years later, so many of those plants were unable to produce after their kind.'
Let me call something else to your attention. No doubt you have often seen the evolutionist's "Phylogenetic tree", a tree which divides and sub-divides from one origin into the modern species. Have you ever looked closely at it? It is carefully omitted as to where the trunk begins. The creationist must have a forest to show the origins, but at least he has a source established by God for his roots.
"The science of fossils stands as the final court of appeal when the doctrine of evolution is brought to the bar."' Notice the trick the evolutionists use here. They tell the age of fossils by the age of rocks. But how do they tell the age of rocks? Simple, by the age of the fossils. You can prove anything arguing in that kind of a circle. Yet they get away with it.
Here is another stunt the evolutionists have put over on the public. When the skull of the Java man, claimed to be 500,000 to 1,000,000 years old, was discovered, the lower jaw was located three miles away. The Piltdown skull, claimed to be 275,000 to 400,000 years old, was located four miles from the lower jaw. And then evolutionists expect the public to believe that the pieces, being that old and that far apart, go together.
Do you know how the descent of man is traced? Evolutionists have only one way of telling, and that is by the kind and shape of' the teeth. Even they don't agree as to whether most of their "evidences" are true or not, but that doesn't stop them from feeding it to the public.
Graebner tells us "that all the fossil relies referred to as remains of apemen would not fill a bushel basket. Not more than a small part of each skeleton has been found." He adds that then a man is put together to fit the evolutionist's idea rather than the construction of the fossils." An article in Newsweek admitted "this man's common ancestor with the monkey world, if such a beast ever existed now looks so remote in the geological measure of time that no one can imagine what the creature looked like . . . Geology Professor Joseph Le Count said, "Now the evidence of geology, today, is that species seem to come in suddenly and in full perfection, remaining substantially unchanged during the term of their existence and pass away in full perfection."" It can all be summer up in the words of Dr. Moore, who said, "The more we study paleontology, the more we see that there is no proof in it for evolution."
As for their proofs in paleontology, the horse is used by evolutionists as the prize item in favor of their theory. The first horse was located in London, the second in the mid-west U.S., and the third back in Europe." This fact is kept from the public as it would do a great deal of harm to their horse theory. (That horse must have been quite a traveler.) Many scientists refuse to recognize the descent of the horse as put forth by the evolutionists because too much does not agree. They say the first horse is not built anything like the modern horse, but more like a cat; the skull and neck resemble the modern "civets" and are very little horse like; and the teeth are more like a pug's or monkey's than the grinders of a horse.
The Piltdown skull was found in Sussex Downs, England, in 1911. It had an ape's jaw, which fitted Darwin's theory, and it was rapidly accepted by evolutionists. It was referred to as "one of the most powerful pieces of evidence documenting the Darwinian position on evolution," and "a priceless specimen. One feels that one would have sacrificed a hand or an eye to preserve this treasure . . ." Shapley tells us. In 1953, it was revealed as a fake created by an amateur who "made monkeys out of the anthropologists."
Evolutionists have made many other blunders. Here are a few. A Museum of Natural History in France claimed to have the skull of a prehistoric panther. Later a rifle bullet was found lodged in the skull."The skull of a much-heralded ape-man discovered in 1927 proved to be the kneecap of an elephant. Two geologists discovered the skeleton of a Red Indian buried deep in the Mississippi mud. Dr. Dowler decided it was 57,000 years old. A piece of carved wood located deeper was claimed to be 100,000 years old. After being observed, it was found to be part of a Kentucky flatboat, so the Red Indian issue was settled. Pronear Seattle and claimed it to be 5,000 years old and part of the human skeleton. It turned out to be part of a bear's hind leg and no human at all.
Before Mendel came forth with his Law of Heredity, evolutionists claimed the giraffe got its long neck by stretching to the tree tops and passed that on to the offspring. They tried to account for many other characteristics by such an explanation.
However, Weismann chopped off rat's tails for scores of generations, but the offspring always had tails. "He performed other experiments which showed that no matter how an organism was mutilated, the effect was nil on subsequent generations.
"An Indian tribe has flattened the heads of their, babies . . . for generations, but all the babies are born with normal heads."
Mendel's law also goes against evolution because regardless of the various species arising, peas are still peas and men still men. To sum it up, "It is not a case, of one 'theory' (Mendel's) having arisen in opposition to another theory (Darwin's). The situation rather is this, that a theory (Darwinism) has been overthrown by facts (The Mendelian Law).
Evolutionists claim the gill slits in embryos are valuable evidence in favor of the theory. Science has shown, however, that these slits, or arches, later form part of the lower jaw, ear bones, and thyroid cartilage, so they are not useless as evolutionists claim.
They next claim the appendix are left-overs from evolution, but now scientists have found the appendix secretes a useful material into the large intestine, and thus they too have a purpose.
The fact an embryo develops three sets of kidneys in succession, and only keeps one is regarded by evolutionists as "an empty gesture of the past." Again science objects, stating each set serves a definite purpose up to the peak of its ability, then the next set takes over. The last set becomes permanent.
Evolutionists claim the external similarity of embryos proves evolution. Marsh tells us this similarity proves a development "in accord with the universal principal of 'least action' . . . This principle . . . is fatal to the evolutionary concept of embryology."
Science tells us "no new species have ever been observed" and that there is no evidence "of the transmutation of species into another one." Dr. Ethridge says that in the British Museum "there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species. Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer, nonsense . . . and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their works." Dr. Clark of the U.S. National Museum said, "There is no evidence which would show man developed . . . from lower forms of life. There is nothing to show that man was in any way connected with monkey." Darwin's work later proved to have a vague beginning and to be based on loose assumptions. The Dictionnaire Encyclopedique des Sciences says that "Darwinism is a fiction of probabilities without proof or demonstrations."
It might be interesting to note who is pushing evolution today since scientists are rejecting it. The American Association for the Advancement of Atheism, also known as the Four A Society is the modern pusher of evolution. They say, "If evolution is established, Christianity is overthrown and God is knocked out of existence." They also say that it is their greatest pry pole.
No reliable scientist will say evolution has been proven. They all tell you it is just a theory. If research was to go on five-hundred more years, the present theories would look as ridiculous as the hypotheses of scholars five-hundred years ago look today. Many of the "facts" claimed today are merely the arbitrary conclusions of overly wishful observers.
l Frank Lewis Marsh, Evolution, Creation and Science, p. 20.
2 Ibid., p. 31
3 Ibid., p. 58
4 Rita Rhodes Ward, The Bible Versus Evolution, p. 31.
5 Ibid., p. 31.
6 Richard Swann Lull, Fossils, p. 3
7 Ibid., pp. 18-19
8 Ibid., p. 94.
9 Ibid., p. 95
10 Harlow Shapley, Samuel Rapport, Helen Wright, A Treasury of Science, p. 485
11 Theodore Conrad Graebner, God and the Cosmos, p. 377.
12 "From Apes or What?", Newsweek, Mar. 19, 1956, 1). 65.
13 Marsh, op. cit., ip. 278
14 G.C. Brewer, Evolution, p. 19.
15 Graebner, op. cit., p. 335
16 Ibid., pp. 335-336
17 Loren C. Eiley, "Was Darwin Wrong About the Human Brain?", Harper, p. 66.
18 Op. Cit., p. 494
19 Eisley, Op. cit., p. 66.
20Graebner, op. cit., p. 302.
21 Ibid., p. 302
22 Ibid., p. 378.
23 Ibid., p. 378.
24 Waldeman Kaempffert, "Evolution Since Darwin", Science Today and Tomorrow, p. 165.
25 Ward, op. cit., p. 51.
26 Graebner, op. cit., pp. 253-254.
27 Marsh, op. cit., p. 256.
28 Ibid., p. 257
29 Ward, op. cit., p. 51
30 Marsh, op. 'cit., pp. 252-253.
31 Ibid., pp. 253-254.
32 Ibid., pp. 247-248
33 Ibid., p. 252
34 Graebner, op. cit., p. 235
35 Marsh, op. cit., p. 365
36 Brewer, op. cit., p. 17.
37 Graebner, op. cit., p. 362.
38 Marsh, op. cit., p. 51.
39 Graebner, Op. cit., p. 297.
40 Brewer, op. cit., p. 9.
Truth Magazine I:10, pp. 1, 21-23