cont
We find all gradations of species in size from the largest to the smallest. Why not the same gradation in intelligence, conscience and spirituality? The difference in brain capacity and intelligence between man and the ape is 5099 greater than the difference in size between the elephant and the housefly. There are many thousands of species to fill the gap in size. Why not many thousands to fill the greater gap in intelligence? Evidently no species became human by growth. Many species like the amoeba, and the microscopic disease germs, have not developed at all but are the same as ever. Many other species of the lower forms of life have remained unchanged during the ages. If the tendency is to develop into the higher forms of life, why do we have so many of those lower forms which have remained stationary? Growth, development, evolution, is not, by any means, a universal rule.
Evolution is not universally true in any sense of the term. Why are not fishes now changing into amphibians, amphibians into reptiles, reptiles into birds and mammals, and monkeys into man? If growth, development, evolution, were the rule, there would be no lower order of animals for all have had sufficient time to develop into the highest orders. Many have remained the same; some have deteriorated.
And now we have a new amendment to the theory of evolution: We are told that the huge Saurians (reptiles) overworked the development idea, and became too large and cumbersome, and hence are now extinct. Prof. Cope says: "Retrogression in nature is as well established as evolution." It seems that man also has, contrary to all former conceptions, reached the limit of his development, if he has not already gone too far.
Prof. R. S. Lull says, (Readings p. 95) "Man's physical evolution has virtually ceased, but in so far as any change is being effected, it is largely retrogressive. Such changes are: Reduction of hair and teeth, and of hand skill; and dulling of the senses of sight, smell and hearing upon which active creatures depend so largely for safety. That sort of charity which fosters the physically, mentally and morally feeble, and is thus contrary to the law of natural selection, must also, in the long run, have an adverse effect upon the race." Too bad that Christian charity takes care of the feeble, endangering evolution, and the doctrine that the weak have no rights that the strong are bound to respect! We are not surprised that Nietzsche, whose insane philosophy that might is right, helped to bring on the world war, died in an insane asylum
After all, evolution is not progress and development, but retrogression and deterioration as well.
But evolutionists, compelled by the requirements of their theory, have added another amendment, which will seem ridiculous to some: Environment has had an evolution as well as plants and animals! Having denied the existence of God, or his active control and interference, they must account for environment by evolution. Listen: "Henderson points out that environment, no less than organisms, has had an evolution. Water, for example, has a dozen unique properties that condition life. Carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary to life. The properties of the ocean are so beautifully adjusted to life that we marvel at the exactness of its fitness. (Yet no design!). Finally, the chemical properties of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are equally unique and irreplaceable. The evolution of environment and the evolution of organisms have gone hand in hand." And all by blind chance! Is it not a thousand times better to believe that all things were created by an all-wise and all powerful God? How could a lifeless environment come by evolution? If we would listen to them, we would be told that the ocean, the atmosphere heat, light, electricity, all the elements, the starry heavens and all the universe, and religion itself, came by evolution, some grudgingly granting that God may have created matter in the beginning.
It is unreasonable to believe that one species and only one out of 3,000,000 by evolution should attain the status of mankind; and that one species and only one species of the primates should reach the heights of intelligence, reason, conscience and spirituality. Huxley says, "There is an enormous gulf, a divergence practically infinite, between the lowest man and the highest beast."
To declare that our species alone crossed this measureless gulf, while our nearest relatives have not even made a fair start, is an affront to the intelligence of the thoughtful student. It does fierce violence to the doctrine of mathematical probability. It could not have happened.
10. THE AGE OF THE EARTH
The estimates of the age of the world vary from 16,000,000 years to 100 times this number or 1,600,000,000 years. Even H. G. Wells admits these estimates "rest nearly always upon theoretical assumptions of the slenderest kind." This is undoubtedly true of the reckless estimates of evolutionists, whose theory requires such an enormous length of time that science can not concede it. Prof. H. H. Newman says, "The last decade has seen the demise (?) of the outworn (?) objection to evolution, based on the idea that there has not been time enough for the great changes that are believed by evolutionists to have occurred. Given 100,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 years since life began we can then allow 1,000,000 years for each important change to arise and establish itself."
An objection is not "outworn" until answered, and to speak of the demise of a generally accepted theory is hardly scientific. We will not allow the evolutionist to dismiss so weighty an objection with a wave of the hand. Prof. Newman, in his "Readings in Evolution," p. 68, gives 60,000,000 years as the probable time since life began. The writer, having based arguments upon that assumption, was surprised to receive a private letter from him claiming that life has existed for 500,000,000 years. Indeed Prof. Russell, of Princeton, says, in his "Rice Lectures," that the earth is probably 4,000,000,000 years old, possibly 8,000,000,000! We can do nothing but gasp, while the bewildering guesses come in, and we wait for the next estimate. We note their utter abandon, as they make a raid on God's eternity to support a theory that would dethrone Him.
But these extravagantly long periods required by the theory, science cannot grant, for the following reasons:
1. According to the nebular hypothesis, and Helmholtz's contraction theory, accounting for the regular supply of heat from the sun the sun itself is not likely more than 20,000,000 years old, and, of course, the earth is much younger. Both of these theories are quite generally accepted by scientists, and have much to support them. Prof. Young, of Princeton, in his Astronomy, p. 156, says, "The solar radiation can be accounted for on the hypothesis first proposed by Helmholtz, that the sun is shrinking slowly but continually. It is a matter of demonstration that an annual shrinkage of about 300 feet in the sun's diameter would liberate sufficient heat to keep up its radiation without any fall in its temperature"...The sun is not simply cooling, nor is its heat caused by combustion; for, "If the sun were a vast globe of solid anthracite, in less than 5,000 years, it would be burned to a cinder." We quote from Prof. Young's Astronomy: "We can only say that while no other theory yet proposed meets the conditions of the problem, this [contraction theory] appears to do so perfectly, and therefore has high probability in its favor." "No conclusion of Geometry," he continues, "is more certain than this--that the shrinkage of the sun to its present dimensions, from a diameter larger than that of the orbit of Neptune, the remotest of the planets, would generate about 18,000,000 times as much heat as the sun now radiates in a year. Hence, if the sun's heat has been and still is wholly due to the contraction of its mass, it can not have been radiating heat at the present rate, on the shrinkage hypothesis, for more than 18,000,000 years; and on that hypothesis, the solar system in anything like its present condition, can not be much more than as old as that." If so, evolution, on account of lack of time, can not possibly be true. If we add many millions of years to this number, or double it more than once, the time is not yet sufficient. For if the sun is 25,000,000, or even 50,000,000 years old, by the time the planets are thrown off, in turn, from Neptune to the earth, and then the earth cooled sufficiently for animal life, only a few million years would be left for evolution, a mere fraction of the time required. This is a mathematical demonstration that evolution can not be true. The same calculations, 18,000,000 to 20,000,000 years, have been made by Lord Kelvin, Prof. Todd and other astronomers
2. The thickness of the earth's crust is fatal to the theory of the great age of the earth, required by evolution.
The temperature increases as we descend into the earth, about one degree for every 50 feet, or 100 degrees per m1e. Therefore, at 2 miles., water would boil; at 18 miles, glass would melt (1850 degrees); at 28 miles, every known substance would melt (2700 degrees). Hence the crust is not likely more than 28 miles thick--in many places less. Rev. O. Fisher has calculated that, if the thickness of the earth's crust is 17.5 miles., as indicated by the San Francisco earthquake, the earth is 5,262,170 years old. If the crust is 2191 mi. thick, as others say, the age would be 8,248,380 years. Lord Kelvin, the well known scientist, who computed the sun's age at 20,000,000 years, computed the earth's age at 8,302,210 years. Subtract from these computations, the years that must have elapsed before the earth became cool enough for animal life, and the few millions of years left would be utterly insufficient to render evolution possible. Real science would not bypass such an obstacle in proof of their theory
The feather being one of the earliest forms of life not evolving doesn't proof anything.
Sure it does. You assume that the fossil record shows that things evolved, how can you disreagard a completely non-speculative fossil records that show that things didn't evolve? The feather, has never adapted. The earliest known fossil of a feather (220,000,000 years ago if you want to use carbon dating[from Longisquama insignis]) shows that it is indistiquishable from a modern day feather. Scientists previously thought, (and falsely) that feathers (and birds with feathers) evolved with the dinosaur species. However, these fossils date back to the earliest dinosaurs, and the feather is perfectly designed for flight, and no different than a feather of a bird today. Since adaptation for survival is the fundamental prerequisite for evolution, scientists are baffled as to how the feather was perfectly formed with one of the first species of animals known to live on the earth. So old in fact, that it doesn't leave much time for the single celled organism to make such a leap, unless you believe in punctuated equillibrium
Finding all the missing links (if they weren't eroded), when the earth has gone through an infinite amount of change over time doesn't say anything, specially when we can't even find biological weapons, terrorist cells, etc in a single region with an immense occupational force and the best military.
And I am curious as to your sources on calling them all fraudulent. Hopefully it is a reliable source, not those similar to the government conspiracies that we caused 9/11.
It is readily available for those who want to see it.
Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than many apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations. The knee joint, which is the only indication of a link between ape and man, was actually found over a mile away and 200 feet lower, and among other human bones. Hardly a credible example.
Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!
Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.
Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)
Peking man: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site.
Laetoli footprints: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey.
Kenya skull: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than "Lucy." This means that evolutionary scientists must once again revise their theory of man's origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the newly discovered fossil - which he says is nothing more than the skull of a chimpanzee - only pokes more holes in the argument for evolution.[43]
Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)
But forget fossile record, we should see constant example of transitional forms between human and ape, but there are none. We should see examples a few steps closer to ape, and a few steps more advanced than human. The fact that this is non existant alone should bring us to question this theory.
