The cuneiform tablet from the 6th century BC shows an aerial view map of Mesopotamia — roughly modern-day Iraq — and what the Babylonians believed lay beyond the known world at the time.

The ancient artifact, discovered in the Middle East, was acquired by the British Museum in 1882 but remained a mystery for centuries until curators found a missing part and transcribed its cuneiform.

The tablet has several paragraphs of the cuneiform on its backside and above the map diagram describing the creation of the Earth and what its writer believed existed beyond it.

Continue reading HERE

Source: https://nypost.com/2024/09/11/world-news/oldest-map-of-the-world-on-babylonian-tablet-reveals-surprisingly-familiar-story/

The post Oldest map of the world on nearly 3,000-year-old Babylonian tablet deciphered to reveal surprisingly familiar story first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

“Twin Cessna seven zero five, five golf.” The call sign crackled in my ears from the speaker over my head, clearly heard over the drone of our engines. I reached for the hand-held microphone mounted beneath the control pedestal below my right knee, pressed the button, spoke into the mike, “Five, five golf—go ahead.”

“Five, five golf, it appears you’ll need to correct about, uh, thirty degrees to your left to make good a track for Dalhart; you’ve drifted south of course.”

“Five, five golf—roger.” The call was from Albuquerque Center, keeping track of our flight aboard a twin Cessna 421, a pressurized, cabin-class twin, as we flew our IFR (instrument flight rules) flight from Montrose, Colorado, to Tyler, Texas. We were cruising at twenty-five thousand feet, over four miles above the earth. On autopilot, I had been steering with the heading “bug” in our directional gyro, mounted in the exact center of the primary flight instruments on the panel.

Immediately above it was the artificial horizon, showing a field of blue representing the sky, and covering lines painted on dull brown representing the earth beneath, and the distant horizon. Superimposed on this interesting little portrayal of the physical elements were little orange slashes, representing our wings, and an orange dot, representing the fuselage. If they were out of line with the painted horizon, it meant we were in a bank. Below the horizon, and we were heading down; above, with only the blue of the painted sky showing beyond the artificial airplane in the instrument, and we were climbing. The degrees above and below the horizon were clearly marked.

To the left was my airspeed indicator, and to the right, the altimeter. The RMI (radio magnetic indicator), with its two needles, a fat one for my primary (number one) VOR (very high frequency, omnidirectional radio range), and a thin one for my ADF (automatic directional finder), was to the left of my DG, or directional gyro, and on the right was the instrument that told me, in the number of feet per minute, whether I was ascending or descending.

Scanning these and other instruments, like the electric “turn and bank” indicator (that most pilots call the “needle-ball” instrument), all appeared normal. Thirty degrees off course? But how could this be?

Mounted on the metal frame separating the two sections of windshield was our magnetic compass. This instrument, of all the others in the airplane, was the one absolutely incapable of lying to us; a “compass correction card” displays each individual compass’ peculiarities perhaps a degree or two of variation due to various factors; the metals in the airplane, position of mounting, or the instrument itself. But after these are established (before the airplane is sold), the only thing which can affect the compass is some irregularity in the mineral deposits in the earth. Charts far north, or over the Mesabi Iron Range, for example, have notices, “Compass readings unreliable in this area.”

How embarrassing.

Here I was, a pilot of nearly six thousand hours’ experience—having flown in about sixty-eight kinds of airplanes, and eleven kinds of jets—an instrument rating on my license saying I am qualified to fly in solid cloud or in stygian night, depending on my instruments alone to bring me safely to my destination. Yet, the anonymous voice from the controller, probably sitting hunched over a circular radar screen down there perhaps at Alamosa, Colorado, yet connected by his computers and cables to Albuquerque Center, the controlling facility along our assigned route of flight—had seen the tiny blue-green “blip” that was our twin engined airplane steadily progressing along a portion of the sky we had no business occupying. Thirty degrees. The longer we flew with that error, the wider the margin by which we missed our destination. Instead of Tyler, Texas, we would probably have made it to Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. A rather wide margin of error! But we would have run out of fuel far short of such a destination. It was comforting to know we were over land—if the rugged mountains of south-central Colorado—for if our destination was but a tiny dot on the chart, like it had been for me so many times when I crossed the Atlantic in the Falcon Jet, landing at Santa Maria in the Azores, or Tenerife, in the Canaries, such an error in steering would mean our last flight, if it went undetected, and uncorrected.

Obediently, I reached up, turned the heading bug to 070 degrees—begrudging the movement and subsequent banking of the airplane as the autopilot immediately sensed its new command and turned to the new heading—for the instrument before me now told me confidently we were heading twenty degrees north of east—and from our position in southern Colorado, that was hardly the route to Tyler, Texas.

And then, as Benny Sharp and I both scanned the instruments in the cockpit, we looked at the magnetic compass and again checked it with our directional gyro. They were thirty degrees off!

Chagrined, betrayed, I punched off the autopilot, hand-flew the airplane as I pushed in on the “caging” button on the directional gyro, spun it back around to conform to the magnetic compass. This was not possible, and would not be accurate, unless we were in level, steady flight. The compass requires time to settle down after each turn.

As I turned the directional gyro to conform to the magnetic compass, I watched the RMI spin obediently in the same direction.

“Something wrong with the slaving mechanism,” Benny muttered. The “slaving” mechanism is a feature of all flight director systems, whereby an electric signal is fed into the gyros serving the DG and RMI to immediately indicate the exact magnetic compass heading of the airplane when they spin themselves erect once energized.

Now that we had a suspect, we watched the slow creep of the gyro throughout the remainder of the flight. It was so slight that no discernible banking of the wings occurred. The “ball” in the turn and bank indicator remained in the exact center, so far as we could tell, and with autopilot engaged, and the yaw damper on, we supposed we were in steady, level flight. Yet, about every ten to fifteen minutes, our airplane would be heading five or six degrees to the south of our intended track. Toward the end of the flight, we suspected the malfunction was in the RMI. “We’ll have to squawk the RMI—have them pull it out and bench-check it,” we agreed. Tedium. Problem. No adequate avionics shop existed in Tyler. The problem meant “down time” for the airplane. It meant a flight back to Dallas where adequate service could be obtained to correct the problem. It meant money.

Far below us, as we flew, were thousands of creatures. Rabbits, snakes, frogs, armadillos. Birds—Aucks and geese—gabbled happily on tens of thousands of farm ponds dozens of rivers and lakes, or flew in their neat, V-shaped echelons, following their leader to some predetermined destination.

Poor creatures. They aren’t equipped with tens of thousands of dollar’s worth of electric and magnetic instruments. No gyros, or artificial horizons. No turn and bank indicators, no RMI’S, and no ADF’s or autopilots. or flight directors. No props. Their wings and props are the same thing.

Only difference was—they weren’t thirty degrees off. They knew exactly where they were.

The ludicrousness of fumbling human beings, dependent on various sophisticated directional devices reminds me of the inebriate who, staggering down a street in Brooklyn, encountered a small sapling. With his head pressed against the tiny tree, his hands grasping its slim trunk, he commenced to walk around and around the tree—keeping his nose pressed against the bark. At length, he slid to the pavement, still grasping the tree, and cried out, “LOSHT! Losht and alone in an impenetrable foresht!!”

Many is the student pilot—or supposedly professional one—who has been lost. Some of them become lost almost over their home fields, for, believe it or not (and this is especially true in the flatlands), everything begins to look the same when you’re high in the air.

How many grizzled instructors have tiredly calmed the fears, stopped the flow of clammy perspiration and the quaking of suddenly feeble knees by sourly pointing below and behind and saying, “It’s over there”?

A few years ago, a Cessna Citation (a small, corporate jet) landed at Gregg County Airport. A good friend, Royce Barnwell (“Barney” to his friends—Barney, who amassed more hours in B26’s than any living man) operates Gregg County Aviation. Sensing a possible fuel sale, he walked to the ramp, waved his arms, and indicated where the taxiing aircraft might park.

The engines’ scream became a tired whine and stopped. The door opened. Two Mexican nationals exited. One of them looked about, curiously, and said, “Donde esta’ Monterrey?”

I almost collapsed, laughing, when Barney told me the story. The two had been to Wichita to take delivery of a brand-new Citation. They were taking it to its proud owner in Monterrey, Mexico. Almost. Except they became lost, and landed in Gregg County, Texas, near Longview—only about sixty miles from Louisiana!

Finding Your Way

How good are you at directions? You probably fancy yourself a reasonably intelligent human being. Surely, you are infinitely smarter than, say, an albatross. But have you ever flown in a commercial airplane, looked out the window at the monotonous sameness of the terrain below, and wondered where you were? Ever landed in a strange airport at night, been taken to a hotel in a taxi, and awakened without the slightest concept of which way was north?

When you last packed the family car and set out on a cross-country trip, didn’t you have to consult a map often? Follow the marked road signs? Perhaps ask directions at gas stations?

We human beings may be intelligent in many ways. But we have no built-in sense of direction. Spin us around, convey us about in the dark, take us for a lengthy ride in the back seat of an automobile, and we may become hopelessly lost. Many are the chilling stories of disaster or barest survival from hunters, hikers, or seafarers who became disoriented.

Not so for the tiniest of birds. Not only are they perfectly equipped to do what they do—to build nests, obtain food; to survive—many of them migrate over vast distances, under the harshest of weather conditions, Out of sight of land! How? Can evolution explain it?

Bird Migration

Many species of birds migrate—some of them for only a few hundred miles, some of them for thousands of miles. Wilson’s petrel, for example, makes the trip from Antarctica to the North Atlantic every year, a one-way trip of nine thousand miles. The little Kirtland warbler flies each year from the Great Lakes region to the Bahamas, about 1,200 miles.

The golden plover manages an eight thousand mile trip; the bobolink seven thousand; the Arctic tern from fourteen to twenty-two thousand miles, round trip!

Surely, you have heard the mournful distant honking and calling of wild geese in flight. Each year, vast numbers of ducks and geese leave their summer feeding grounds far in the north, in Canada, or Alaska, and wing their way south. Millions of them winter in south Texas and other gulf-coast states. Many go on to Central or South America.

But, WHY?

Well, weather is the answer. It takes no great “scientific” observation to realize that, with winter arriving, the sun’s rays become longer. Shorter days, longer nights, and bitter cold invade the northern hemisphere.

In the hostile, winter environment, food would be unobtainable. The rivers, ponds, and lakes freeze over, so millions of waterfowl couldn’t dive for their aquatic food, or feed on water plants, small fish, and insects. The tundra freezes; heavy snowfalls cover even the mosses and lichens upon which some birds feed; the frozen north becomes a bleak, barren, frigid, silent, seemingly lifeless wasteland.

Yet, evolutionists cannot answer the mysteries of bird migration merely through observing that weather changes force the birds to look elsewhere for food. Why? For the simple reason that the birds begin their journey just when their food supplies are at an absolute peak—BEFORE the storms of winter begin to fall upon them!

Evolutionists speak of the “mystery” of bird migration. So much for that. “It’s just another one of those ‘mysteries,’ ” they say—and then go confidently ahead, teaching evolution. Unfortunately, the entirety of evolutionary thought is a “mystery”—and it is a mystery how any thinking, intelligent human being could believe it, when presented with the real facts.

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Animal Life says, “There is no more fascinating way of arousing interest in flight than having your child catch sight of migrating birds—perhaps a flight of geese in military formation, or a close-massed flock of grackles racing like a dark, wind-blown cloud. Even after years of research and experiment, scientists speak of the ‘mystery’ of bird migration, for they still do not completely understand it” (Vol. 1, page 17, emphasis mine).

“. . . the real mystery is still unsolved,” says Robert Allen, in his book, Birds, page 9. “The greatest mystery about bird migration is the ability of many birds to move over the same route, year after year, arriving each spring in the same nesting locality and spending each winter in the same place”(emphasis mine).

Not only birds migrate. Such tiny creatures as ladybird beetles migrate. So do monarch butterflies, bats, eels, elephants, horseshoe crabs, king salmon, turtles, plankton, locusts, lemmings, frogs, whales, tuna, and dozens of other species!

But how? Why? When did the very first bird migration take place? What strange, built-in instinct, or compulsion, causes these creatures to know when it is time to depart? What guidance system leads them unerringly across featureless seas for thousands of miles in the darkness of night? How can a tiny insect, like a colorful ladybird beetle, with a “brain” virtually microscopic in size, migrate over vast (to him—or her!) distances?

Let’s turn to the prestigious book by Wesley Lanyon, called Biology of Birds. After all, it’s a collegiate-grade, well-done, thoroughly-researched textbook on bird biology. Whatever we want to know about birds, especially bird migration, we ought to find here! Pages 68, 69, the index says. Here it is. “One of the questions most frequently asked of an ornithologist is, ‘Why do birds migrate?’ “—Hey! GREAT! That is exactly the question WE wanted to ask when we turned to Lanyon’s book! His answer?

“WE CAN ONLY SPECULATE as to what these factors may have been, for it is IMPOSSIBLE to substantiate these theories with experimentation” (emphasis mine).

Well. So evolutionists aren’t going to be much help, after all. They only call it a “mystery,” say “We can only speculate,” or tell us they “do not completely understand it.”

Can Science “Explain”?

Some experimentation has been conducted. Unfortunately, the experiments only serve to further confuse the befuddle scientists, so long as they cling, stubbornly, to their evolutionary theories, their belief that there IS NO GOD who designed these myriad creatures and set within them these miraculous instincts!

It was found, for example, that young swallows, nesting on the European continent slightly south of the latitude of London, flew all the way to Africa to winter. But they flew only to the northern and equatorial parts—like Morrocco, Libya, Chad, etc. Yet, strangely, the exact same kind of birds, same species—same colorings, habits, nests, appearance; same kind of birds which were nesting in England—further north than their cousins in Europe, flew all the way to South Africa—distance TWICE AS FAR as their European counterparts.

WHY? Wouldn’t there have been enough food to go around in England?

Do all birds leave England each winter? No. Dozens and dozens of species stay in all winter. Especially the crows and sparrows! England may have bad winters—but surely they’re not all that bad. But the swallows migrate. Since evolutionists say it’s all a matter of the survival of the fittest, of strange compulsions having to do with food-getting, mating, nesting—you know, with SURVIVING—and since the sparrows survive quite nicely in England, why didn’t the swallows just swallow their pride, and decide to become sparrows? Why not just stay in England?

But no, they migrate—thousands and thousands of miles.

In one experiment, a migrating swallow was observed to return to build a nest on the same beam of a barn in Pennyslvania for three successive years.

There was an experiment involving the tiny, breathtakingly beautiful ruby-throated hummingbirds. We have them all around our house in Texas during the summers. They disappear every winter. I remember a neighbor lady cautioning others to “take down your feeding stations every winter, or the birds will stay around too long, and winter will catch them, and they’ll die.”

She need not have worried. Those plastic feeding stations you can hang outside your windows so you can watch the beautiful, tiny little creatures hover as they drink in the honey and water would never overcome the built-in migratory instincts of hummingbirds. They will leave just when their food supply is at the most abundant—whenever their built-in “migratory clock” tells them it’s time to go!

In the experiment, three tiny babies (about as big as your thumbnail) were banded by scientists. They grew up, fed around the neighborhood where their parents had nested, and disappeared with the other hummingbirds as fall drew on. They flew about five thousand miles, to the tropics of South America. Of course, no one saw them go—for within a moment of darting flight the little creatures are but a speck, and soon swallowed up in the distance. The next year, astoundingly, those same three birds, with the bands clearly in place on their tiny legs, were using the same feeding station their parents had used the year before. It was within thirty feet of where they had been hatched!

Hummingbirds have perhaps the most rapid metabolism among all living creatures, for their busy flight requires that they eat the equivalent of their own weight each day! Think of applying that kind of a diet to human beings, or elephants!

Ornithologists have determined that the tiny rubythroated hummingbirds fly completely cross the Gulf of Mexico to the Yucutan Peninsula, and down into southern Mexico and Central America for the winter.

Yet, the diminutive birds cannot find any food en route; not a single island, or branch of a tree upon which to rest. How do they suddenly leave their rich source of nectar in Texas, and, unable to eat the equivalent of their own body weight each day, sustain flight for many, many hours?

Some strange “genetic urge” begins to trigger the deposit of increased fat—like stored energy—in the bird’s bodies some weeks before they begin to migrate! But how? Remember, the very first migration from Texas to Central America had to be successful. But long, long ago, in the evolutionary scheme of things, when the very first ruby throated hummingbird “decided” to migrate across the vast, trackless waters of the Gulf, the little bird didn’t “know” that its body needed to begin collecting much more nectar than for daily sustenance. There was no “genetic urge” to begin depositing body fats around the breast muscle for long-range flight!

So when the very first hummingbirds attempted the very first migration, naturally, they “ran out of fuel” about twenty miles out over the Gulf, fell into the water, exhausted, and drowned. Therefore, since there was no hummingbirds left to “experience” the benefits of migration, there was no need to migrate. Since they all died, there are none left today.

But there are tiny rubythroats today, and they successfully migrate each winter.

Evolutionists might suppose, “Perhaps they tried to migrate, and failed, turning around just as they tired, and made it safely back to land.” Then, they might surmise, “perhaps succeeding generations attempted flights further and further, ‘gradually’ adding to their body fat to sustain prolonged flight without food supply.”

Why? Why, when not a single one of these increasingly prolonged flights netted a single drop of nectar? Are we to assume the tiny birds kept at it for thousands, perhaps millions of years, failing each time, until finally the first pair succeeded? And, since they had to turn back, and there were no flowers blooming during all those millions of winters, and they starved to death the very first winter, then there are no rubythroated hummingbirds in Texas.

But there are.

Confusing, isn’t it?

It is confusing if you cling to the concept of evolution to somehow explain the fabulous intricacy of God’s great creation; His amazing design of His creation; His awesome mind which thought out, planned, and brought into being each of His amazing living creatures.

The only way to understand the “strange genetic urge” which causes the little rubythroats to begin storing body fat instead of burning it up each day; which causes them to leave Texas just when their food supply is at its peak; which causes them to fly unerringly across the vast Gulf of Mexico, hundreds of miles, and navigate perfectly to their desired landfall, is to understand God built into them that instinct; God caused that genetic urge—they did not “evolve” it!

The Amazing Golden Plover

And then there is the marvelous story of the golden plovers. They nest along the coastlands of the Arctic Ocean—in the faraway land of permafrost, muskeg, seals, white whales and polar bears.

After raising their young, feeding them all through the summer until the young are able to fly with the parents, the golden plovers somehow feel a strange compulsion to leave the hospitable, friendly environment of their nests, where ample food supplies are readily available, and begin one of the most awe-inspiring migrations in the bird world.

Unerringly, they point their beaks southward, flying an elliptical course along routes only they seem to know, covering more than sixteen thousand miles!

Observers in Labrador, on the tip of Nova Scotia, see them flying through. They completely bypass the lower forty-eight states, winging their way over the trackless Atlantic, perhaps first sighting land again along the tip of Cuba or Haiti. Their next landfall is undoubtedly somewhere near Guyana or Venezuela. Across the famous rain forest of the Amazon, the “Matogrosso” of Brazil they fly, until arriving at their wintering area located in southern Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina.

There, while frigid winter storms howl across the frozen tundra they had departed, they happily feed and spend their days in the sunshine of summer in these southern latitudes.

Again, just as their food supply is at it’s peak, and before there is any discernible reason for them to depart, they begin a northward migration. But they do not retrace their mysterious track across the open Atlantic! Instead, they point their beaks northwest, cross the towering Andes range (with its peaks such as Aconcagua, higher than twenty-two thousand feet!), reach the Isthmus of Panama and Central America, fly across the Yucatan Peninsula and the Gulf, reaching a landfall somewhere around south Texas and Louisiana, wing their way up the Mississippi Valley, across the northern states flanking the Great Lakes region, into Canada, and onward to their home in the remote Arctic!

What a trip!

It would be a laborious, virtually impossible trip for me even if the Cessna 421 had an inexhaustible fuel supply without special over-the-water navigational equipment. It would be a comparatively easy trip in a modern, sophisticated jet aircraft with more than three thousand nautical mile range, equipped with inertial navigation systems.

However, even these super-sophisticated systems (the type computers which took men to the moon) may be as much as one-half mile off at the end of a three hour flight! They certainly could not take me to the same beam in an individual barn, or to the same gravelly bank along a tiny creek where a parent’s nest might be found!

Remember, the golden plovers leave their nesting area when their available food supply reaches its peak. All of their foods, tiny crustaceans, arctic plants, insects, etc., are in the greatest abundance at this time.

Evolution supposes there are various compulsions somehow built into these birds which cause them to go in search of greater food supply!

But how can evolution explain them leaving when their food supply is so adequate?

No, “weather” is not the compulsion which causes migration in every case.

Species after species leave Canada and the northern states in the contiguous forty-eight in mid-summer, in the HOTTEST time of the year, long before there is any hint of autumn, let alone winter!

By the way, there are many other cases of migration back and forth within the tropic zones, having nothing whatsoever to do with weather!

Can you believe it? Some have actually proposed that birds began migrating, anciently, in the face of “advancing glaciers” during the Pleistocene “ice age”! Think about it. Just how fast does a glacier advance? It may move a few feet, or even a few hundred yards in a year! But it moves far more ponderously and more slowly than a three-toed sloth, or than the proverbial molasses in January!

Further, there are penguins in Antarctica! Other birds depart, mysteriously, winging their way up across Africa, into Europe, or along South America up to the United States and Canada!

Yet, the penguins remain where they are!

Why didn’t the terns, anciently, simply turn into penguins? There they are, with the very richest oceans of the world all around them! Scientists know that the extremely cold seas around Antarctica are the feeding grounds of many species of the great whale; that many types of seals and other huge creatures are at the top of the food chain in this region. “Krill,” or plankton, crustaceans, small fish, and sea life are abundant in Antarctica!

This sea life is the basis of the penguin’s food supply!

Can evolution have it both ways?

Can they confidently tell us that the vast number of birds spending their summers on Antarctica but which mysteriously leave just when their food supply is at its peak do so because, anciently, some compulsion caused them to LEAVE Antarctica to go back to the north (where summer would soon be coming on) in order to SURVIVE? Then, are they going to tell us that the penguins GRADUALLY evolved their wings into flippers; evolved the sack into which to deposit their eggs so it could be incubated away from the cold; evolved their big, webbed feet, and powerful beaks for catching fish—evolved their thick, protective winter “Coats” and took to diving after krill in order to survive?

Stimulation for Change

Evolution tells us the stimuli for adaptation or survival are a wide variety of food-getting techniques, nest building, egg laying, feeding of the young, coloration and camouflage, protective armor (as in the case of porcupines and armadillos), etc., etc.

Thus, as you look closely at each creature, whether penguin, Arctic tern or golden plover, you see fully-formed perfectly-functioning methods for food getting, egg laying and incubation, feeding of the young; in short, astounding techniques for survival. BUT HOW? WHEN? In order for each of these species to have such intricately-functioning food getting and survival techniques, each species had to be successful on THE VERY FIRST TRY!

If not, if for some reason their food-getting and survival techniques were inferior—if they failed in the distant past, then they DIED! They didn’t survive. If they didn’t survive, then they aren’t here, today! But here they are, in all their amazing splendor, with their mind-boggling proclivities which science cannot explain.

The Arctic Tern

Most people, seeing an Arctic tern in flight, would believe they were looking at a seagull. The terns nest in the extreme north, along Hudson Bay, across the northern territories of Canada, and along the west coast of Greenland. Some may nest as far south as New England.

The annual migratory pattern of millions of these birds is so vast, so impossibly complex, that it presents a great MYSTERY to ornithologists and evolutionists.

For example, the terns nesting in the Cape Cod area (and this is the southern-most nesting area for the terns) depart just when their food supply is at its peak, fly across the Atlantic Ocean to offshore Spain, then continue along the west coast of Africa to cross the Atlantic again until they reach the easternmost tip of South America!

Then, they follow the South American coastline to Antarctica! Why? Some of the birds flying such a tortuous route actually cover as much as twenty-two thousand miles! Unerringly, they return from far away Antarctica back to the very same nest; the same rocky shore, inlet, creek, gravel bed or sand pit that they departed!

Scientists have speculated that the birds migrate by the stars.

Stellar Navigation

Some ornithologists have conducted experiments with captured birds, introducing “fake sunlight” or artificial stars into their environment, and have been amazed to see the birds line up in appropriate direction, according to the travel of these fake sources of light. In absolutely black, featureless “skies” the birds were completely disoriented. Some naturalists believe birds may be able to determine where they are from the slant of the sun exactly the way a navigator may take his noon sight with a sextant! According to one biologist, the calculations involved for a bird to do this are so enormous that they “involve so much mathematical calculation that you would think only an IBM machine on wings could get anywhere with such a shifting point of reference. Nevertheless he is convinced that the migrating and homing birds are equipped by instinct for such a feat” (Our Amazing World of Nature; Its Marvels and Mysteries, G.V.T. Matthews).

E.G.F. Sauer of the University of Freiburg, Germany, conducted an exhaustive study of warblers which migrate over vast distances—mostly at night. If you have ever been to a planetarium, you may have witnessed an artificial reproduction of the heavens, wherein one sits in a theater, and watches the movements of the heavenly bodies as the world rotates. Dr. Sauer placed the warblers under such a dome—where they could only see an artificial reproduction of the night sky. If he rotated the artificial sky in a wrong direction, the little birds were completely disoriented—that is, they aligned themselves according to the false position of stars in a fake environment! Yet, when he rotated the planetarium sky correctly thewarblers lined up exactly in accordance to the direction of their intended migration!

The Very First Migration

Since evolutionists claim we are the result of blind chance, of gradual evolutionary processes brought about by external stimuli (survival) over vast epochs of time, would it not be logical to assume that we, as the very PRODUCT of evolutionary processes, should be able to understand the processes by which we came to BE?

Why not apply, pragmatically, the presumptions of evolutionists to bird migration?

Let’s imagine an Arctic tern up in the extreme north of Canada, nearly to the Arctic ice cap, sitting on its nest. Never mind, for the moment, what the bird is doing there (we will have to remind ourselves again and again in this exercise not to ask embarrassing questions!)

Our beautiful black and white tern doesn’t know he is a tern. He is only a “creature” of some sort, surviving quite nicely as August and then September pass.

All around him, the Arctic tundra is rich with insects, crustaceans, soggy bogs and marshes wherein myriad aquatic forms thrive. The nearby bays and estuaries teem with tiny fish.

He walks along the bogs, pecking at insects and tiny crabs. He flies to the nearby shores, eating small fish.

The weather begins to chill. Winds howl, storms blow in. Snow begins falling, and one night in late September, the water in his favorite bog freezes.

He stretches out his wings, flaps them several times. Nothing. He flaps them again! What? He isn’t moving. He looks down in disgust. His feet are frozen in solid ice! All around him are other terrified terns, trying to tear their tiny toes from the freezing grip of the ice. But all are stuck fast. They mournfully call to each other as the next storm, and the next, descend with the madness of winter’s fury. All die. None survive. Terns do not exist. The first terns didn’t have the instinct to leave when their food supply was at its maximum—to avoid being trapped by winter. They waited until the weather forced them to leave, because they hadn’t yet “evolved” this amazing instinct, this sixth sense of timing—hadn’t yet passed it on, genetically, to their progeny. So they all died. None lived.

But we’ll suppose, somewhere, a few terns decided the first chilling nights signaled them they should leave. Of course, they knew nothing of the jet streams; they didn’t know that it could be warmer here, sometimes, than it could be in Florida! But they decided to go south, like any thoughtful tern.

The further south they flew, the colder it got. In Minnesota, they saw hundreds of species of small birds, hopping about on the snow. Some drilled their funny-looking beaks into tree trunks, shot out a long, barbed and sticky tongue, and ate larvae that attack trees. The terns decided to try this. Several died of a broken neck. One caught his beak in a crack, and was frozen solid, unable to move. Several flew dizzily around in circles, a powerful headache throbbing in their tiny brains. Others, not having “evolved” the ice-tong-like feet of a woodpecker, could only flap uselessly at the tree trunks, making a feeble peck here and there—bending their beaks, failing to penetrate the hard bark. But the woodpeckers kept on tattooing the trees—happily surviving.

Beneath, rustling about in the leaves from the autumn, were thrushes, larks, grackles, chickadees, and several other species. This appeared easier than banging their heads against bark, so the terns stayed in Minnesota, and gradually “terned” into tiny tanagers! So there aren’t any terns, today. But there are.

Well, let’s speculate that the first truly successful migrators simply flew out to sea, intending to cross the Atlantic (how did they know it was there? How did they know the world is round? How did they know they wouldn’t fly off the edge, be sucked into a terrible vortex of intergalactic wind, and have all their feathers stripped off?—but we’re not supposed to ask such questions!). They fly for a couple thousand miles, or so. Then, they begin to become disoriented. None of them had ever paid the slightest attention to the sky before. What are all those tiny, blue-white lights up above? They didn’t know. Oh, they might have wondered about the big, white disk that seemed to change shape as the months passed but you could never depend on it. It moved around crazily in the skies. It would be on one horizon, and then the other, looking like a sliver of white, or a big yellow orb, squatting on the horizon.

Now, they were flying along, two thousand, seven hundred miles south, southeast of Labrador—underneath an overcast. They flew in circles. Gradually (for everything always happens “gradually” in evolution), they ran out of gas—body fat, to the uninitiated.

You see, they can only remain in flight so long as they have energy to fly. But they are leaving the far north only because their food supply has been covered up under tons of snow and ice! We won’t wonder about how long they lost weight, tried to peck a hole in the ice and go ice fishing, or eat snow, or…

And so, as their body fat is used up, one by one they let out a squawk, drifted down in crazy, random (everything in evolution always happens randomly) patterns, and fell into the sea. None survive. Terns don’t exist.

But let’s imagine some few terns made it to the coast of Spain. There, in sunny Spain, were hundreds of bird species. All along the rocky coastlands over which they flew were gulls, cormorants, several species of ducks, falcons, pigeons—further inland were warblers, blackbirds, finches, Wrens, thrushes, sparrows; dozens of other species, including ravens! So they stayed in Spain, and evolved into sparrows! There aren’t any terns.

But there are!

Somehow. those first migrating birds who left at the exact moment; who didn’t become disoriented; who knew solar and stellar navigation; who had accumulated enough body fat, somehow knew they should pass by Spain—that they must not begin fishing in the rich waters of Portugal, or stop in the Canary Islands, and become a you-know-what!

On to the coast of Africa they flew.

Birds don’t sweat, or ooze, like their “closest living relatives—the crocodiles!” (That’s right! That’s what evolutionists believe!) But these birds were winging their way in the late September right along the equator! It was hot! Furthermore, in the jungles below them, in Senegal (they didn’t know it would someday be called that—but then they didn’t know this was Africa, either!) were millions of tasty creatures; small mice, rats, grubs, worms, beetles, bugs, moths, weird-looking fish, crustaceans; a veritable banquet of edible bird food. Did they stop? No way. No tern was going to “tern” into Africa and become a crocodile again—they had had it with crawling about on their stomachs in swamps. Nosiree! These terns were going first class—they were going to fly!

And so they flew out across the Atlantic again—and died in a tropical heat wave. Now, our nonexistent, non-surviving, completely lost, hopelessly confused, starving terns (which don’t exist, for they could never have survived—not knowing navigation, where they were, where they came from, where they were going), are really in trouble, for, ahead of them, lined up like so many huge medieval castles, are thunderstorms whose tops tower up to seventy thousand feet! But they don’t know this. They think these huge things are mashed potatoes, or heads of cauliflower. Or snow. So they fly to the edge of the first big thunderstorm, and try to land. They are at only six hundred feet. Suddenly, they are sucked up into a violent updraft that carries them to twenty-thousand feet! Around them are grapefruit-sized hailstones. Lightning flashes, thunder rolls. They all die from lack of oxygen. Some are pelleted to death. Others have every feather ripped off by the winds. Still others fight their way to lower altitudes, evolve a genetic distrust of thunderstorms (this being the first one they have experienced) and decide to pass on the information to their young—whenever they next nest.

The survivors (but there aren’t any) cross the Atlantic once again, arriving at the mouth of the Amazon. Below them are myriad birds; macaws, parrots, finches, warblers, red-winged blackbirds; the rivers are teeming with juicy bird food. In the tropics, hundreds of exciting-colored birds survive. They perch on branches above the ugly snouts of alligators. Some even pick insects from the backs of alligators. Some even evolved into alligator toothpicks, choosing to pick the teeth of alligators, who like to lie around in the sun, opening their mouths to tiny birds, who eat food scraps from the alligators’ mouths.

The thoughtful terns toss this tantalizing possibility around in their minds.

Nope. Better not. If they stopped here, could they be an “Arctic” tern? No. Like Benedict Arnold, they might be called a “terncoat”!

So, on to the south Atlantic they fly. Past Uruguay, with its teeming forests, rich rivers and lakes—over thousands and thousands of miles of rich foods, hundreds of other species, millions of fish—they fly. Why? Who knows? They just “do”! But, wasn’t their initial “instinct,” or whatever, because they needed food? And haven’t they disdained a billion tons of food—from the east coast of the USA to Spain and Portugal; from Africa to Brazil? Yes—but we’re not supposed to ask such questions, remember?

On to Antarctica they fly—arriving there in the Antarctic “summer.”

All around them are penguins. The penguins look, curiously, at the terns, who turn, tiredly, in tortuous circles, to land on rocks, sprawl in the sun, and die from exhaustion. Actually, none arrived—they all died much, much earlier.

But the penguins begin to discuss it.

They decide the terns are foolish. Much better to simply evolve into a penguin, and dive for krill.

But they didn’t. Instead, they remained there during the Antarctic “summer,” happily surviving on the available foods. But since they had not yet developed the genetic “clock” that would warn them to leave long before the Antarctic winter arrived; since they could look all about them at various species of gulls, penguins, and other creatures, like seals, who were merely lying about, sunning themselves as if they hadn’t a care in the world, the terns stayed where they were.

Hadn’t they battled the elements, died by the thousands, struggled in the snows of Minnesota, and fought the thunderstorms of the equator to get here?

And so the Antarctic winter howled upon them with sudden intensity, and they all died. None survived. There aren’t any terns.

But there are.

So here we go again. Now, we’ve got to “imagine” the terns somehow “knew” when it was time to depart—”knew” which route to take, “knew” they should fly over billions of tons of tantalizing tern food, disdaining to remain there and evolve into a macaw or a red-winged blackbird, and wing their way up to the far north once again.

And if you believe all this just “evolved,” then I’ve got some great lakefront property in the Sahara I’d like to tell you about…

Evolutionists are Mixed Up

Ever pick an evolutionary textbook off the library shelf? Ever look through the introductory material; the first chapter?

If you do, you will run across expressions such as these:

“Out of man’s grasp,” “said to be,” “mystery,” “according to the theory,” “other ornithologists believe,” “no single solution,” “other theories proposed,” and “no adequate answer.”

Speaking of the “mystery of bird migration,” one “authority” came up with a truly classic line, “All theories fail when offered as the one solution to all migration” (Science News Letter, p. 19 1, September, 1962, emphasis mine).

Remember, “natural selection” and “survival of the fittest” absolutely require that various food-getting techniques have proved successful—and that those very techniques have contributed to the development and “evolution” of the species!

But evolutionists are rendered dizzy by the study of terns, plovers, warblers, hummingbirds, or, for that matter, any migrating species, from tuna to turtles, and from ladybird beetles to monarch butterflies!

One evolutionist must not have known what he was saying when he wrote, “If natural selection has been responsible for the evolution of the adaptedness of behavior in an animal, then the way that animal is behaving right now must obviously contribute to its survival” (Animal Behavior, Niko Tinbergen, Life Nature Library, p. 174, emphasis mine).

And that is the whole point.

They survive today by doing what they do. And they migrate. So, they had to MIGRATE to SURVIVE! And the very first migration had to be successful!

Undaunted, this source completed the quote by saying, “This is why studies of the survival value of behavior are not only important in their own right but are also required for an understanding of evolution” (ibid).

Oh. So we must understand “evolution” by understanding the complete “mystery” they claim they cannot understand?

Evolutionists tell us that there was a time when birds did not exist—except as disgruntled reptiles.

Well, now, let’s suppose there were no birds? Could this earth survive? Let a scientist tell us.

“Today, a countryside without birds would be unimaginable. And this is as it should be, for without birds HUMANITY WOULD FACE DISASTER.

“We have only to note how many different kinds of injurious insects are being continuously and tirelessly destroyed by birds, to see what part the latter play in saving our field and orchard crops from destruction, as so many kinds of birds are entirely insectivores.

“Equally effective is the help of birds in man’s fight against moles, mice, rats and other rodents which not only destroy the harvest in the fields, but also constitute a danger to human health as carriers of infectious diseases. These are only a few of the helpful roles played by birds in maintaining NATURE’S EQUILIBRIUM” (Strange and Beautiful Birds, Josef Seget, page 5, emphasis mine).

But notice what scientists tell us about the arrival time of birds and insects.

“Flying insects became a reality about fifty million years BEFORE the reptiles and birds took to the air, and for those fifty million years the only flying creatures were insects” (Insects, Ross Hutchins, pages 3, 4, emphasis mine).

But could the earth survive?

Let’s say it was only fifty million years, perhaps twenty-five million years, maybe five million years of difference. How about a thousand years? Would you believe a hundred?

Let’s see what would happen to a “birdless” earth!

“The descendants of a PAIR of houseflies, if they all lived and did well from April to August, would total 190,000,000,000,000,000,000 individuals. Fortunately, the balance of nature, in the form of natural controls, limits such population explosions among insects just as it does among other animals and among plants” (Insects, Ross Hutchins, page 9, emphasis mine).

Granted that insects eat other insects. Perhaps the earth would not be covered with forty feet of insects in one year.

But be sure that the earth COULD NOT SURVIVE unless birds and insects were CREATED TOGETHER to form that fantastic balance in nature, that man is just coming to understand.

Why don’t evolutionists think about the ecological implications of their theories for a change?

No, evolution has no answer for bird migration or how birds came to be such awe-inspiring creatures—just as they have no answer for the origin of MATTER, or the origin of LIFE!

It’s time you saw the real fallacies of evolution—time you faced squarely the ONLY ALTERNATIVE, that God DOES EXIST, and you can prove it!

There are thousands of similar problems for evolution. Regardless of sensational articles of the new “Scope’s Trail” in Arkansas a few years ago; of claims by scientists that evolution is true, when you take a really close look at the theory; when you apply plain common sense to their claims, you can see great flaws.

It’s no wonder evolutionists suffer a migration headache when it comes to bird migration.

You may copy and distribute this information only to friends and family without changes, without charge and with full credit given to the author and publisher. You may not publish it for general audiences.

This publication is intended to be used as a personal study tool. Please know it is not wise to take any man’s word for anything, so prove all things for yourself from the pages of your own Bible.

The activities of the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association are paid for by tithes, offerings and donations 
freely given by Christians and co-workers who are dedicated to preaching the gospel according to Jesus Christ.

The post A Migration Headache… For Evolutionists first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

To breathe, or not to breathe—that is the question. Most of the time, it’s not even a question. You breathe without being aware of it—involuntarily. While you are working, walking, reading, eating, speaking, you manage to breathe in and out, filling the hundreds of thousands of tiny air sacs in your twin set of fan-shaped lungs with air.

Now that you’re thinking about it, you might be interrupting your normally relaxed, unconscious routine. You might hold your breath for a moment, take a deeper than normal breath, or exhale with greater force than normal.

But if you do decide to hold your breath, you cannot do so, in most cases, for more than about forty seconds to one minute (which is a long time for most people, except divers, distance runners, and other athletes in very good condition) or you will faint. Cut off the flow of oxygen to your brain and body for only a very few minutes, and you will be dead.

As you breathe, your wonderfully designed lungs extract the oxygen and deliver it to the little red blood cells lined up in the thin, tender walls of the air sacs. They accept the oxygen, and reject the carbon dioxide. You exhale the carbon dioxide, as do all air-breathing creatures. The carbon dioxide is needed by plants to survive. Plants in turn create more oxygen. Neither can live without the other, just as flowering plants, including fruit orchards and many kinds of comestibles which provide food for man, cannot live without bees and other insects to pollinate them.

Without oxygen, or “life-giving air,” you and I could not remain alive but for a minute or so. The same is true of animals. Our bloodstream must carry oxygen to every part of our bodies. Your red blood cells, like little dinner plates, busily reenter the blood stream, carrying their cargo of oxygen to your brain, to your feet and hands. They travel rapidly through tiny blood vessels, called capillaries, to every part of your body, including even the lungs, which are constantly inflating with new supplies of oxygen.

When did you first breathe? Moments after you were born. Prior to that time, you received oxygen through the umbilical cord, from your mother’s lungs, and through her blood stream. But your lungs were fully formed, waiting for that moment when you would first inflate them, and they would begin carrying oxygen to your body for the first time. Where did you get your lungs?

Naturally, you got them from your parents, whose two lives produced your one life. The genetic pattern that was present in your father’s spermatozoon and your mother’s fertile egg determined everything you were to become. Since the creation of Adam and Eve, there has never been a time when this was not so.

Which came first, by the way, male or female?

It requires two human lives, male and female, to produce a child. The two sexes could not have “evolved” apart; there had to be the capability of reproducing after their own kindfrom the very first time a human baby was born.

Which came first, your red blood cells, your white blood cells, your blood vessels, or your capillaries? Which came first, your lungs, or the oxygen they take in and distribute to your blood? Who made oxygen? Growing plants and diatoms in the sea manufacture it. But they cannot do so without utilizing carbon dioxide. What is carbon? Where did it come from?

Carbon is an essential part of matter. But what is matter?

Matter is energy, arranged in a fantastically intricate way.

Air-breathing Fish

There are many species of air-breathing fish. One of the strangest of all is the African lungfish, which is capable of forming a cocoon of mud, then lying inert in estivation for months or even years at a time, surrounded by hard, dry mud, awaiting the next rainy season! The lungfish is only one form of life that presents absolutely insurmountable difficulties for the theory of evolution.

African lungfish are a delicacy in parts of Africa. Native hunters use sticks to tap on the hard, sunbaked bottom of dried ponds. When they encounter a hollow sound, they begin digging around it until they extract a rounded lump of dried mud, which appears almost like a geode. They then chip away the layers of mud, until they expose the fish within. There it is! A breathing fish, equipped with lungs which secreted mucous to protect it, wriggling ever deeper into the mud perhaps months, or even years previously. It is alive, yet torpid from its period of estivation. The natives then cook and eat the fish.

A strange way to “fish,” isn’t it? Tapping on the sunbaked mud of a dried pond would not occur to most people.

Fish With Lungs—But How?

Why don’t we have gills, instead of lungs?

Actually, the study of any one of the functions of your own body is a “breathtaking” study into the marvels of God’s creation, and a “breath of cold air” on the theory of evolution. There are no “half-lungs,” or partially formed lungs which are useless. Breathing creatures either breathe, or they die.

Did you know there are air-breathing fish? Actually, all fish “breathe” air, but the vast majority do so through a system of gills, which act like filters, extracting oxygen from the water through which they swim. Sometimes, when eutrophication of freshwater occurs, and the growth of algae and plants proliferates, extracting more and more oxygen from the water, or if man thoughtlessly pollutes a river or pond so the fish are deprived of oxygen, fish literally suffocate while swimming about. They roll over, rise to the surface, and die. They are seen frantically working their gills, as if gasping for breath.

Not so with the lungfish. He swims to the surface, gulps a big breath of air just like a dolphin or a garfish, and swims beneath the surface again.

How did the lungfish come to be?

Evolutionists claim something like this happened: Somewhere, back there millions and millions of years ago, probably in the middle Devonian period (the “age of fishes”), ponds and lakes dried up, and the fish began to die. But not all of them died. They simply reasoned that they had to develop stronger pectoral fins, turn them into rudimentary “legs,” and walk overland to the next pond, even if it were miles away, then slither back into the water so they could survive. Meanwhile, of course, they figured out they had to
develop lungs, because there wasn’t any water coursing over their gills. Sound logical, or preposterous?

First, before you read an evolutionist’s explanation, be cautioned: Try not to think too hard. Try not to ask too many questions, like: Just how long could a breathing creature survive when its breathing apparatus quits functioning? How would such a creature develop a sense of direction? How does a creature gradually develops lungs so it can breathe? How does a creature survive sunburn, drying, insect attacks, dust, thornbushes, rocks, and miles of sunbaked travel, when only moments before it was a fish with fins and gills, no legs, and no lungs?

You and I know that if we didn’t have lungs right now, we wouldn’t have time to “gradually” develop a set, because in just over a minute, while we were sitting there with a strange “I want to grow a new set of lungs” look on our faces, we would die.

Here, incredibly, is what the evolutionist said: “Lungfishes belong to the ancient [sic] order of the dipnoans—fishes with both gills and lungs. They date back…to the middle of the Devonian, when ponds and streams began to dry up and many fishes died.

“The lungfishes were not only able to breathe air, but to travel from mud puddle to mud puddle on paddle-like fins. Eventually they acquired the ability to lie dormant in the mud, where they waited for the seasonal rain” (The Fishes, F.D. Ommanney and the editors of Life, p. 77, emphasis mine).

Ponds and streams began to dry up? Where? All over the world? In Africa? South America? But surely, the Orange, Niger, Congo, the Nile, and the Zambezi didn’t dry up—they run powerfully yet today, and teem with fish.

Did the Orinoco, the Rio Plata, and the Amazon “dry up” when, during the “Devonian” age (which never really existed) the dominant form of life on earth was supposedly fish?

Did the oceans dry up? Most fish are contained in the seas of the world, not in ponds and streams.

The evolutionist said “many fishes died.” But obviously not all of them died, for they are surviving in the countless billions today, just as they did then. The reason he said many fishes died is to make the point that it was somehow necessary for the lungfish to fully develop its lungs, change its pectoral fins into leg-like appendages, and start off overland to find water. But why didn’t all fish do this?

If all the ponds and rivers dried up, why didn’t all fish gradually develop lungs, and why are there any fish with gills left anywhere?

If fish with gills could not survive when this massive “dry-up” occurred, then why are the vast majority of fish equipped with gills?

He said they “eventually” acquired the ability to lie dormant in the mud. But before they acquired this ability, what did they do? They didn’t have the ability to lie dormant in the mud, so, in desperate search for life-giving water to cool their parched skin and flow over their gills, they thrashed about—rolling, lurching, lunging, flipping, wallowing—trying to find relief for their dry, cracking, burning skin; trying desperately to find some oxygen-rich, cool water to flow over their bodies.

So, before they “eventually acquired” this ability, they died. So there really aren’t any lungfishes today—for it is obvious they could not have survived for more than minutes; at the most, perhaps a half-hour. But there are lungfishes today, so there must be some other explanation. Here is a “possible” (not really) explanation a guide at a Florida bass fishing resort once told me: Seems a fisherman was out in the St. Johns River, and caught a very large bass. He didn’t have a live well in the boat, but he had a small piece of cord. He was miles away from the dock, and wanted to fish for several more hours, so he decided to put the bass in the boat while he was motoring from place to place, then, tying the cord through its lip, lower it into the water now and then so it could breathe through its gills and wet its body.

He began lengthening the period of time he kept the bass out of the water so the fish would get used to it. Finally, after giving the bass his last drink, he kept the fish in the boat for an hour as he motored back to the dock.

He had to walk up a narrow, slippery plank to the dock from his boat. He picked up the bass from the boat, and was proudly holding it up to display to the gaping fishermen on the dock when it slipped out of his hand, fell into the river, and drowned.

This story, the typical “shaggy dog” (or, in this case, “dry fish”) story, was told for the entertainment of fishermen. But our evolutionists who tell us stories like that of the lungfish are serious. They expect us to believe what they say and write.

Evolutionists are fond of telling us that the thousands of intricately developed, perfectly formed creatures on our earth gradually evolved their means of food-getting, nest-building, reproducing, and surviving over vast aeons of time. But how much time is required for a lungfish to develop lungs?

And, since there are thousands of species of fish in their teeming billions in all the oceans, rivers, lakes, and streams, what was the impetus for the development of lungs in the first place?

Every year, small ponds here and there around the world dry up, and all the fish in them die. But when they are filled again, as most usually are, fish reappear eventually, because eggs are carried inadvertently on the feet of wading birds. When flooding occurs, fish are washed up here and there, and distributed over large areas. Never would it have been “necessary” for fish—any fish, anywhere—to “develop lungs” in order to survive! For, if all the fish in any given pond died, there would be countless millions of fish in otherponds and lakes who did not!

Lungfish, as we read, belong to an order of fish that have both gills and lungs. But why? If they needed lungs to survive long dry periods, why not “gradually” (which is impossible) develop lungs, and discard the gills?

If they were surviving as fish with gills, were their gills effective? Obviously they were, for without the flow of water over the gills, they could not have extracted the oxygen they required to stay alive. So why not keep the gills, and forget about developing lungs? Billions of fish, in thousands of varieties, from great depths in the seas to the smallest, shallowest little ponds, have gills. Guppies and great yellowfin tuna have gills. They do not have a poorly developed half-gill, or a poorly developed half-lung.

There are no such halfway gills or lungs. The gills that exist, whether in millions of fish, or the gills possessed by a lungfish, function perfectly.

There simply are no imperfect, half-efficient lungs or gills today. That some species possess both is strong proof they were intended to survive in areas of extreme drought, and rainy seasons, where both lungs and gills would be needed.

No Intermediate Species

One of the fatal flaws in the evolutionary theory is the fact that there are no “intermediate” species. There are no fossils whatsoever which show a partially formed, half-effective, gradually developing wing, or beak, or claw, or foot, or eye, or lung, or leg.

Whether trilobites or sabre-toothed tigers, worms or woolly mammoths, the fossil record shows us only perfectly formedcreatures, perfectly functional; capable of reproducing after their own kind; capable of food-getting, of migrating from place to place when necessary; of either predation or proliferation so as to offset predation; of camouflage and evasion—creatures which leave us wondering in awe at their incredible design.

Now, think. If it were true that each species of insect, fish, bird, or mammal alive today developed gradually, over vast aeons of time, then how many “intermediate species” were there? The answer is countless thousands—millions! Each of these “intermediate” species would have characteristics that would appear absolutely astounding to us today.

The fossil record would be replete with an incredible number of weird-looking, partially developed creatures. In fact, if the theory of evolution were true, there would be no way evolutionists could determine which species among all the fossils was the “finished” species, and which was the intermediate, for the differences would be too subtle to detect.

But there are no intermediate species. Each fossil form is complete, distinct from the others, separate.

As an example, remember that evolutionists believe the closest living relatives of birds are crocodiles. Evolution teaches that fish developed legs and lungs, came ashore from primeval oceans, climbed trees, began leaping and flapping their legs and shoulders, until eventually they learned to fly. They point to “flying” squirrels (which don’t fly, but glide by spreading out a layer of skin between their legs) in an attempt to illustrate an intermediate species.

There are “flying” fish in the seas. I have seen them many, many times, spreading large pectoral fins and, using their tails to vigorously keep them aloft, skim over the waves for incredible distances to escape from predators. But they are gliding, not flying, and they are still fish, with fins and scales; obtaining oxygen through their gills.

Evolutionists are fond of using Archaeopteryx, a fossil bird that had teeth, as an example of a so-called “intermediate species.” They say that ungainly amphibians, like alligators, happened to lurch into sharp rocks now and then. This caused damage to their plates or scales. “Loosely hanging scales,” they say, gradually developed into wings. Does an abrasion on your elbow gradually develop into another arm? Do injuries cause new appendages to grow? Nonsense!

No, any slow-moving, ponderous, cold-blooded creature like a huge monitor lizard or a crocodile which damaged his “scales” (crocodiles don’t have scales) or his skin would simply have damaged scales or skin for a time. He would notgrow wings!

Are Hebrew babies born circumcised? Hebrew males have been undergoing circumcision for thousands of years now, and not one is born circumcised! Acquired characteristics, such as an accident that might cause the loss of a limb, are not inherited.

A man who lost a hand in a logging accident does not engender one-handed children.

But IF (an impossible assumption!) an ungainly cayman could have “gradually” acquired something akin to wings, resulting from encounters with rocks, there would be a thousand times the number of fossils in the fossil record of the intermediate species—partial wings, loosely hanging scales, and the like—than of the fully “developed” creatures we see preserved as fossils. But there are no intermediate species found in the rocks.

Evolutionists claim some of the amphibians, who were “gradually” evolving into “four-footed quadrupeds,” and exchanging their scales for fur, decided to return to the sea, and evolve into the toothed whales and dolphins.

Four-footed, furry mammals have their noses on the ends of their snouts. One thinks of possums, coons, dogs, cats, or even mice in this regard, as well as horses, cows, and humans.

Now, envision a dolphin in your mind. Where is his “nose”? In the back of his head, so he can arch his back, come to the surface, bury his toothed beak in the water so he is not blind, and evade the charge of a hungry shark while he is breathing, then open his blowhole for a moment, expel the hot air laden with carbon dioxide, and quickly inhale a deep breath.

Whales and dolphins are equipped with a blowhole so they can breathe while their eyes are still beneath the surface.

Can you envision “part dolphins,” who were once land mammals? How did they “decide” to return to the sea, and become a full-fledged (I mean, a “full-skinned”) dolphin?

Evolutionists imagine that the ancient furry, four-footed quadrupeds who for some reason grew weary with the land began “fishing” in shallow waters. Little by little, they foraged deeper and deeper. Why? Well, they had to do so, to survive! Why? Well, because their food source was growing scarce on the land! How strange, when there are so many thousands of mammals surviving, eating, breeding, living their lives on the land, without any need whatsoever to venture into the sea.

But evolutionists imagine they “gradually” lost their hair, changed their feet, claws, or hoofs into flippers, “gradually” moved their nostrils from the front of their snouts to the top, then up between their eyes, then to their foreheads, then up through the fur line, or between the horns or antlers (if they had any), to the back of their necks! Once they did this (and there are no fossil species with any such transitional features), they became dolphins and whales, instead of “furry, four-footed quadrupeds,” according to evolution.

What these ancient, non-existent creatures should have done is become otters, and just leave it at that.

Evolutionists love to use their imaginations. One is reminded of a little six-year-old, whose imagination creates fictitious characters and fabulous scenes, acting out in his mind Gulliver, or Jack the giant-killer.

IF any such gradual alteration of the entire physical structure of animals took place—which it didn’t—there would be thousands of times more intermediate fossils found in the rocks than the so-called fully developed ones.

Why? For one thing, the intermediate forms, since they were only part this and part that—having partially developed blowholes, partially developed fins, partially developed tails, and the like—they would be nowhere nearly so well equipped to survive as the fully developed species. Therefore, they would be more likely to perish and more likely to be found in the fossil record.

But they are not there. They are missing—simply not available.

Each species found in the fossil record is a fully developed, perfectly adapted, incredibly complex creature which once lived on the earth, and which died, and was buried by massive deposits of mud and sand before it could decay or be eaten by carrion-eaters or insects.

Flattened sharks, still in swimming positions, as well as millions of other creatures, including shellfish and many species of fish, prove they were buried suddenly, in great catastrophes.

But now, let’s go back—far, far back in time—and try to imagine the very first attempt by a lungfish without lungs to survive when his pond dried up.

“Gaspy,” the Very First Lungfish

Imagine we are looking at a pond which has been drying up. The process is quite slow, so the fish, turtles, frogs, and insect larvae which inhabit the pond are unaware of the fact that the water is slowly retreating from the banks.

As we know, if such were to occur today (and it often does in times of drought), all that happens is that the fish are trapped; as the available oxygen is depleted, they die. Some struggle in the thickening mud for a time, and then they die. Turtles begin to slowly make their way overland, seeking another pond. Frogs try to hop to another pond before they dehydrate.

But fish? How long does it take for a pond to dry out? If it completely dries out, that particular stock of fish dies. But if it is only partially drying out, with a lower water level, how do the fish swimming about in a shallower pond determine they had better begin developing lungs, instead of continuing to happily swim about in their somewhat smaller pond?

Does our evolutionist imagine that the seasons were suspended for millions of years? Does he imagine fish had such a lifespan? Does he imagine that a fish, having experienced a few weeks or a few months of a lower water level, somehow “decides” she had better pass on to the eggs she is about to lay an innate desire to begin to develop lungs?

But when the rainy season came again, and the pond was filled to the brim and overflowing, why would not the fish continue to be fish, with gills, and survive just as they were, with no need to develop lungs?

And until there was a need for lungs, there was no hidden, primal urge within the fish to “develop” them. But the “need” didn’t occur until an hour or so before the fish died from lack of oxygen. So there aren’t any lungfish today, because there was not enough time for the first ignorant gill-equipped, non-lungfish, who had no idea his pond would dry completely out, to develop them.

But there are lungfish. Where did they come from?

Let’s apply the imaginary scenario of the evolutionist to “Gaspy,” our very first lungfish. After all, there had to be a first one. Evolution would never admit that countless thousands of them were created by God at the same time. Therefore, there had to be a very first “almost” lungfish—a strange-looking, partial lungfish with “primitive” lungs whichjust barely were able to process the air and supply oxygen to the fish’s body.

So here he is—Gaspy—looking around in dismay at all his dead cousins and friends, who have been thrashing about in the muddy bottom of a pond that has been slowly drying out.

“Not me!” he says to himself. “I’m not going to suffocate in all this mud—I’ll just drag myself to another pond, and grow legs instead of fins, and lungs instead of gills, and I’ll survive!”

He knows, however, that he cannot breathe. He is strangling on mud! His gills are covered with mud, and he hasn’t had time to develop any lungs yet! So he dies. But he can’t die—because he needs to “evolve.”

He knows his skin will soon dry out, without being laved with water. He knows he must get to another pond—a larger, deeper one—or he will die. (Please don’t ask how he “knows” all this, for such concepts are embarrassing to evolutionists).

Now, in our imaginations, let’s lower ourselves to one inch above the thick, gooey, slimy puddle of mud in the bottom of a drying pond. What do we see? We see a forbidding dry, cracked shore where water used to be. We see dried tree roots and sticks. We see rocks and dust and sand. We see exactly what Gaspy sees—from the height of one inch. From down there, he can’t possibly see over the rim of the drying pond, so he has no idea what is out there, except perhaps the tops of some trees. But he has never seen trees before, so they mean nothing to him.

He has got to move! Got to escape this puddle of thick mud, which has already become so thick his gills have long since quit providing him with oxygen, so he is already dead! But he can’t be dead, because he needs to evolve!

An idea strikes him! Why not simply wriggle about, allow more and more mud to form about his slimy body, ooze some more slime out from his skin until he forms a ball-shaped cocoon, and estivate right where he is? That way, he won’t have to shed his fins for leg-like appendages. He won’t have to somehow navigate to the nearest deeper pond. He won’t have to drag himself along the ground for miles and miles, making about a foot an hour, breaking his fins, scouring his belly on dirt and rocks, struggling over twigs, branches, and sand. He won’t have to be so horribly sunburnt as to dry out completely. Besides, he couldn’t have gotten even so much as one breath with his non-existent lungs, and his gills became caked with mud and dirt, so they couldn’t provide him any oxygen, and so he died.

But he can’t have died, evolution says.

Did he begin to secrete a sticky, mucous substance so he would not dry out, and die? But how, if he didn’t know he should? Did he begin to store up body fat, so he could estivate, and live off his own fat for up to several years? Did he begin to practice slowing down his heartbeat, and taking only one breath or two in an hour, getting ready to slow down his metabolism?

But how? What was the impetus, the inner compulsion to compel him to do all this, when he had no idea he would have to do it to survive?

No, better to “walk” across land, and find a deeper pond, where he can continue to use his gills, like any self-respecting fish. This would be utterly impossible, for he would be dead in only moments, but he starts out, then dies in less than two minutes from lack of oxygen. His gills have become clogged with dirt and sand, and he gasps his last. But he can’t do that, because he must somehow evolve, so his offspring can still be alive today.

How far to go? He doesn’t have a clue, for he has not yet developed the sense of smell, so he can tell where the next water is to be found. He doesn’t have any knowledge of the stars when they appear at night, for he has never seen them before. He doesn’t know north from south, or east from west, or higher terrain from lower, for he has been a fish all his life, swimming about in a pond.

But he lurches, twitches, lunges—by now his pectoral fins are worn completely off. Most of his scales have been scraped from his body; his tail is hanging in rags, and of course his mud-caked, sand-filled, dirt-clogged gills have long since ceased to function, so he is dead. He doesn’t exist. But he can’t be dead, because he needs to evolve.

Gasping for breath with his non-existent lungs, he rests for a moment, having no idea which way to go. Suddenly, he feels a stinging sensation! Fire ants! He has lurched his way onto a fire ant mound, and hundreds of them are stinging him, beginning to eat holes in his bedraggled skin! He tries to lurch away, but the ants can run faster than he can lurch! So he is eaten by ants, and he doesn’t exist.

But he must exist, because he has to develop those lungs! Just then, a shadow passes across him. Then another. He looks up from his dirty, sandy track in the baked earth. It is a buzzard! No, several of them. They land, hop toward him; their obscene, naked heads glistening in the hot sun; their cruel beaks and little, yellow eyes poised over his drying, dirt-caked body.

They begin to feed. So he dies. He doesn’t survive.

Time and time again, he doesn’t survive. Wild dogs attack him. A possum finds him. Foxes eat him. A stork gobbles him up. A pack of hyenas discover him, and quickly eat him.

But, notwithstanding all these many times he dies, and does not survive, he survives! (Anything is possible in “evolutionary” thought, just like in a Disney cartoon).

Miles from nowhere, he finally gives up in frustration. He sadly turns back toward the muddy bog he left. Days later—having been eaten several times, and having died several times from dehydration—he arrives back at the pond he left, which is now only bone dry, cracked, hard earth. Too late! There is now not enough mud for him to create a slimy mud ball, and estivate inside it until the next rainy season!

So he dies.

Exit Gaspy—poor critter. He had no idea he needed to develop lungs in only minutes! He had not the faintest idea about how to estivate, and didn’t have the lungs to keep him alive even if he had. He didn’t know north from south; had no idea where to find the nearest water. His gills were clogged, and so, just like all the other fish in the pond, he died. He should have evolved into a snake, and slithered under a rock to find shade. He should have caused his ragged, broken, useless pectoral fins to evolve into wings, and sprout feathers, and take off into the air and perch in the shady branches of a tree. He should have evolved into a lizard!

Think about all this for a moment. The very first time a lungfish existed, he had to exist in perfect form; with a set of very functional lungs. The very first time a pond dried out that contained lungfish, they had to know how to form a muddy ball, lie quiescent within it, and estivate until the next rainy season!

What is estivation?

It means to lie dormant, or torpid, during the summer. It is the opposite of hibernation, which is to lie dormant during the winter, as do bears.

The Lungfish—Perfectly Equipped

When the dry seasons come to the great river valleys and basins of some of the largest rivers in Africa, such as the Congo Basin or the Zambezi River Valley, lungfishes begin to sense that their ponds are drying out.

Repeatedly, as the water level lowers, they squirm into the thickening mud, keeping their heads just above so they can breathe. They begin by plunging headfirst into the ooze, then surfacing. Then they slowly wriggle, squirming ever downward as the surface sinks. By repeatedly thrusting his mouth to the surface for air and squirming with his body, he forms a rounded cavity in the gradually hardening mud. He keeps it barely open at the top so he can breathe.

He secretes a slimy mucous which completely covers his body. As the ball of mud dries, he wraps his tail around his head to protect his eyes. The only opening remaining is a small, funnel-like hole to permit him to breathe.

How did the lungfish “evolve” the mucous-like secretion? Obviously, the very first time in all history that a lungfish “decided” to encase himself in a rock-hard cocoon of mud, he had to secrete the slimy mucous in order to protect his body. There would be no second chance. How did he “evolve” the instinct to wrap his slimy tail around his head, to protect his eyes from drying out? The very first time any lungfish “decided” to form a mud cocoon, he had to protect his eyes! Though he breathes, he is not like most other air-breathing mammals. If he is uncovered from his parchment-like dried ball of mud, and his body exposed to the air, he will die in only a few hours. How does he survive? During his long wait—incredibly, for up to seven long years—he lives off his own body fat.

He slows his metabolism down to almost nothing; his heartbeat is only three beats each minute, and he requires a breath only once in several hours!

Today, depending on the location and the weather (dry or rainy season), there are countless numbers of lungfish, waiting for water to begin trickling down their tiny breathing hole.

When the rains come, and the cracked, dry lake bed begins to fill, the lungfish feels the water on his head. He begins to squirm immediately. As the water softens the blowhole, he is able to wriggle more and more out of his cocoon. Since he is now much smaller than he was at the beginning of his estivation (as long ago as seven years in some cases), he is soon able to wriggle free from his self-imprisonment, and begin swimming in the pond.

Soon, other life forms appear. Insect larvae, waiting in the hard mud, and frog eggs and fish eggs, carried on the muddy feet of wading birds, begin to hatch. Flying insects lay their eggs, and hatch more larvae. Happily, the lungfish begins to feed on his regular diet of tiny plant and insect life again!

And all this evolved?

Any thinking person should know better!

You can apply logic to any creature that exists—from mosquitos to great blue whales, from hummingbirds to honeybees. Study what they do and how they survive. Ask yourself about the very first creature, far, far back in time. How did they gradually evolve their incredible, complex methods of survival?

Let’s look at another fascinating example.

Stingless Bees

Science tells us there are more than one million different species of life forms—mammals, birds, fish, and insects. This is not counting bacteria and viruses. About 80 percent of all life on our planet is represented by insects.

Of these, about one-third are beetles, and about one-seventh are ants, bees, and wasps. A study into any one of these myriad creatures is a fascinating journey into the awesome intricacies of creation; a glimpse into the powerful, vast, and limitless intelligence of our Creator God.

Consider the stingless black bees of the Amazonian rain forest: They usually nest in the hollow of a tree. Like “mud dauber” wasps, they find a source of mud, busily gather it up, and fly to their nesting site.

Finally, they completely seal the nest, or hive, until there is only a cylindrical tube, several inches long, as an entry. How did they first “know” they should do this? What happened to the very first stingless black bee colony that did not fashion a narrow, protective entry to their hive?

Obviously, they were found by a bear, or sloth, and eaten, so none survived. But they did survive. So the very first stingless black bee colony had to survive in the same fashion they have always survived!

While black bees are stingless, they do have powerful mandibles with which they can bite.

Their “flight tunnel” is the only way they can get into or out of the nest once it is completed. They insure it is only one bee’s width, so only one bee can enter at a time.

Now comes the amazing part! They secrete a sticky substance, a viscous, tar-like goo, that will trap any insect seeking to crawl into their flight tunnel.

How do the bees themselves avoid being entrapped in their own tar? They fly out of the tunnel, and they fly into it. It is several inches in length, one bee in width. Yet, they fly straight into the tunnel, making a perfect bull’s-eye every time!  All this was millennia before anyone thought about landing an airplane on a rolling carrier deck!

Their eyes (actually, hundreds of little eyes contained in two orbs, giving them incredible vision) instantly adjust from the light of the forest to the stygian blackness of the inside of the tunnel and the nest!

In order to leave the nest, they must become airborne before they enter the exit, or they would become stuck fast. As additional protection, just where the tube widens, they amass a large contingent of “guard bees” to repel any invader with powerful bites.

The stingless black bee has an incredible method of survival and reproduction. If they did not have such a survival method, then they would be fair game for a huge variety of crawling and flying insects; for snakes and rodents, birds and bears, possums and sloths. Therefore, they had to do what they do the very first time they did it!

The Honeybee and Pollination

One of the absolute proofs of God, and a major disproof of evolution, is symbiosis. There are hundreds of examples of symbiosis, or the ability of two completely different forms of life to aid each other, and which cannot survive apart from each other. Mankind, and the vegetables, fruits, nuts, meats, and fish he must eat, as well as the bacteria that live with him, is an example of incredible symbiosis.

Look up an article on the honeybee sometime in an encyclopedia, or obtain a book about bees from your local library or bookstore. It is a fascinating, mind-boggling study into one of the most orderly, regimented, systematic, successful societies in the entire ecosystem.

Every grade school child learns about bees and pollination in biology class. Every person grows up having observed bees flying from flower to flower, swarming over peach trees in bloom, carrying yellow dabs of pollen on each hairy leg.

The flowering plants could not exist without them. The bees could not exist without the plants. Which came first, the bees or the plants? This is not a simple question, or a nettlesome, impudent question for evolutionists, to be brushed aside like the proverbial “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” question of the days of the Scope’s trial. It is a profounddifficulty for evolution, for, unless bees and flowering plants co-existed from the first, neither could survive!

The average bee hive contains about 50,000 to 80,000 bees, of which most are workers. The workers are a specific size, and are female, but cannot reproduce. Bees play such an important part in human life, and their efforts help man produce so many products that there are many idiomatic expressions in our language about bees.

“She is the queen bee” is a despective term for an arrogant woman. “He made a beeline for home” means he hurried home in a straight line, because bees, while they will wander in all directions in search of pollen and nectar, always make a straight flight back to their hive. “Honey” is probably the most common term of endearment used by spouses, and by parents for children. God described the Promised Land to Israel as a land “flowing with milk and honey.”

Consider the life of a bee, and ask yourself some vitally important questions about how evolution could be possible!

A bee egg is the size of the period at the end of this sentence. It is laid by the queen, who is solely responsible for reproducing the hive. None of the female workers are fertile; none lay eggs. But the egg is not laid on the ground, on a branch, or on a leaf. It is carefully deposited in the center of a perfectly formed sextagonal cell, made of beeswax.

The wax is produced by young workers. How? By special glands in their abdomens! How did such evolve? Which came first, the egg or the larva, or the grub or the adult? Why are there drones, workers, and one queen? No queen could exist without workers to collect the nectar. No worker could exist without the queen to lay eggs. No eggs could ever be produced without the drone to mate with the queen.

Did a tiny egg “evolve” by itself? Did a queen bee “evolve” in Africa, and a drone “evolve” in Massachusetts? If so, how did they ever find one another?

Was the first step in the “evolution” of a bee the worker? But if so, since they are infertile females, and cannot reproduce, how did they reproduce? These are not idle questions, merely intended to anger evolutionists. These are valid questions, which can be asked of any form of life in creation!

What is beeswax, and how is it formed?

The wax is secreted from pores outside the bee’s body, forming tiny flakes. The worker moves the flakes from its body to its jaws, and chews the substance until it is formed into beeswax. It then carefully builds a perfect, sextagonal cell. Each cell is only about 1/80th of an inch thick, and is joined to other cells, each exactly the same size. Who has not seen a honeycomb, and marveled at the intricate construction of it?

Each tiny cell is so constructed that it has a slight downward tilt toward the central retaining wall so the honey will not ooze out. Scientists have studied the honeybee for many centuries, and still do not know much of what there is to know about these marvelous little creatures.

How did they know to produce wax? How did they know to develop the glands that secrete it? How did they know to scrape it from their sides, chew it into strips, clip it with their jaws, and lay it carefully into such an intricate shape?

“As we may easily discover by measurement, the hexagon has the smallest circumference and therefore requires the least amount of building material.

“Moreover, hexagons are much better fitted to receive the roundish larvae which are reared in these little chambers than cells with triangular or square cross-sections could ever be.

“The bees, with their hexagonal cells, have in fact discovered [sic] the best and most economical plan conceivable. How they arrive at this, none of our learned men has so far been able to discover. Their writings and discussions on the subject are many, but they have not yet solved the riddle” (The Dancing Bees, Karl von Frisch, p. 8).

Beeswax is remarkably heat resistant! It will not melt down until subjected to 140 degrees Fahrenheit, the highest melting point of any known kind of wax!

One may purchase a jar of honey which contains a slab of honeycomb. When you study a honeycomb, you are notlooking at the end result of blind chance—randomness through millions of years called evolution. No, you are looking at intricate design, and the awesome creative mind of God Almighty!

Once the egg is laid by the queen in the cell, it takes only about three days for a tiny larva, like a little worm, to crawl out of the egg. Which came first, the wax, the cell, the queen, the egg, or the larva? How did the queen become fertile? Where did the drones come from? How and why are the majority of the more than 50,000 bees in an average colony workers, who spend their lives gathering pollen, secreting wax, producing honey and royal jelly, and making perfectly shaped wax cells?

How does the larva survive? One thing is sure, if a tiny larva“evolved” from some other form of life, it didn’t survivewithout being deposited in a waxen cell, and being fed by worker bees!

Go to your local health food store, and ask for a jar of royal jelly, if you wish to sample larva food! Royal jelly is a special kind of honey that is extremely rich in vitamins and proteins. It is secreted from glands in the heads of the young workers. In only days, as the tiny larva grows into a grub shape, or pupa, the workers begin feeding the grub a mixture of pollen and honey that scientists call “beebread.” Five days after the larva hatches from the egg, the workers seal the pupa by depositing a thin layer of wax over the cell. In twenty-one days, the grub-like pupa has miraculously become transformed into an adult bee. The bee then bites its way out of the cell, and immediately begins to work!

How does it know what to do? Miraculously, it knows to begin gathering nectar and pollen. It knows to join other workers in vigorously fanning its wings to cool the hive in hot weather. It knows, instinctively, that it should pay attention when a fellow worker comes back to the hive and begins to dance.

Dance? Yes, dance! Many years ago, as a project for science classes, our instructors obtained a swarm of bees in a beehive and placed it in a window, so it could be observed from inside the classroom.

The teachers demonstrated to the students how bees landed on the hive, then danced by facing in a certain direction and “buzzing,” or fanning their wings in various bursts of energy.

Facing first this way and then that, they would fan their wings vigorously for a certain span of time. They were teaching their fellow workers how far to fly in which direction relative to the sun! The workers then flew away from the hive, directly to the nectar that their scout had found.

Now, let your imagination run wild—just like evolutionists do. Imagine the very first time a worker bee wandered about, looking for nectar.

But she had not yet “evolved” the ability to return to the hive! She buzzed about, finding flowering fruit trees (which did not exist, since bees had not yet evolved as a colony yet, and there were no swarms of bees to pollinate the trees and flowers), and drank the nectar.

But, since she had not yet “evolved” the hairs on her legs, the grains of pollen did not collect on her, but kept falling off. Therefore, she couldn’t pollinate the trees and plants, for she could not carry the pollen from place to place. All the flowering plants died. So did the worker bee. After all, how could she survive, since she was never an egg, or a larva, or a pupa? And how could she survive if she did not know she was supposed to produce honey to eat? And how could she survive if she could not find the way back to her non-existent hive?

But, overcoming all these impossibilities, she decided to return to the hive. But she had not yet evolved the ability to make a hive, for her body had not yet “felt the need” to secrete wax from non-existent pores, and she had no idea she had to chew the wax, and then carefully form it into perfectly shaped sextagonal cells, all joined together. After all, there was no hive to which she could return!

Besides, she had not yet “evolved” solar navigation. She had not yet evolved a keen memory, detailing every meter of distance between each flower, and memorizing its relationship to the sun and the hive.

So, our very first honeybee could not fly on a direct “beeline” to her hive, for she didn’t know how. Furthermore, if she could find her non-existent hive, there would be no queen awaiting her (and what difference would it make, since workers are infertile females, anyway?), no larvae to feed, and no additional wax cells to make to house eggs, since there were no drones to mate with the queen, and therefore no eggs!

Therefore, our very first honeybee, without a hive, without solar navigation, without wax-making ability, without pollen-gathering ability, simply ran out of nectar, fell to the ground, and died of exhaustion. Just before she died, she was heard by an evolving beetle to say, “To bee, or not to bee—that is the question!”

You see, the hive is a perfect community of symbiotic relationship—each drone, worker, and queen working together in intricate ways for the good of all. None can survive alone. In a perfect cycle of life, all must survive together, doing exactly what they do.

Scientists do not know how the workers “decide” it is time to produce more queens! Perhaps the queen grows old, or decides to fly away with a swarm of drones to form another hive.

For some mysterious reason, the workers begin to feed only royal jelly to several larvae, but not before building special cells for these special larvae to grow in. These cells are not among the myriad other six-walled cells, but resemble a half a peanut, hanging from the hive.

The ruling queen lays eggs in these larger, different cells. The eggs hatch into tiny larvae. The workers then feed them some “special substance” (science does not know how they decide to do this, what this substance is, or how they produce it) in the royal jelly which determines they will become queens.

The young adult queen has changed from larva to pupa, to a winged, hairy-bodied adult in only sixteen days after the egg was hatched.

But, alas! If two queens hatch at the same time, they fight to the death! One finally succeeds in stinging the other one to death. If there are more than two, the same scenario takes place. All are eliminated except one! Then, gaining strength from eating honey, the surviving queen takes her first flight.

How does she know how to fly? She has no memory of flight. She has no “knowledge” of what those wings are that gradually dried out, and are now lying alongside her back. But, suddenly, she flies. Eager drones immediately follow her. Higher and higher she flies as the drones swarm about her, jousting with each other for her favors. She may mate with one, or several, during this mating flight.

She then returns to the hive, where workers have been rapidly creating dozens of new, perfectly shaped, sextagonal cells of wax they have chewed from the flakes on the bodies. The queen now has two functions in life: laying eggs and eating. She may lay as many as 2,000 eggs in one day! She continues doing this for up to five years, having laid up to one million eggs in her lifetime!

How did the workers first “decide” to select particular eggs to become queens? How did they “evolve” the “special substance” they feed a tiny, struggling, worm-like larva? What causes the queens to fight until only one remains? What if, back in the dim reaches of ancient time, the very first two queens to ever hatch stung each other to death simultaneously? That would mean the very first hive died, so no honeybees exist!

No, the entire colony had to exist just as it does today from the very first time there ever was a beehive, with workers, drones, and a queen—all fulfilling their perfectly-designed roles.

Honey—Food for Bees and Man

Most school children know all about honey. At least, they know its taste. There are many kinds of honey; many colors, depending on the kind of flowering plants from which the bees collect nectar. Many thousands of families keep their own bees and collect their own honey. For many children, a favorite sandwich is peanut butter and honey. Many major food manufacturers bottle and sell honey. They do not “make” honey—it is made by the bees. All they do is filter out most of the impurities and place the honey in a container, and sell it.

How do the bees make it?

When a bee drinks in nectar from a flower, it is at once collecting and redistributing grains of pollen so that the plant is pollinated. The nectar is taken in through the bee’s mouth, into its “honey stomach.” Once the honey stomach is filled with nectar, the worker knows it is time to return to the hive.

Though she followed the “dance” of the scout she watched turning this way and that, buzzing its wings in bursts of energy to indicate how far and in what direction she should go to find the blossoms, the worker has programmed into her tiny brain the exact location of the hive relative to the sun.

With her honey stomach full (as opposed to her own stomach which digests her food), she turns directly toward the hive. She “knows” that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. She makes a “beeline” home.

While the nectar is in the bee’s honey stomach, her stomach is secreting “certain chemicals” (science does not know how this is done) into the nectar. Once the bee is back in the hive, she either gives the nectar to another hungry bee by drawing it back out of the stomach through her mouth, or, most of the time, deposits it in one of the wax cells. Once a cell is full of nectar, the bees carefully seal it with wax.

The stored nectar is changed into honey by the chemicals from the bee’s honey stomach. Any water in the nectar evaporates, for the razor thin walls of the wax cells are porous and the nectar is changed into honey.

Each tiny drop of nectar is incredibly small. The bee’s little honey stomach, when it is empty, is about the size of a pinhead. It would require about sixty full honey stomachs to fill a thimble with nectar. Amazingly, each bee must visit and drink nectar from over one thousand single florets, such as those in crimson clover, just to fill its honey stomach once!

Bees do not encounter pollen by accident. They need pollen in order to survive. The workers who feed the queen larvae do so from predigesting pollen into royal jelly. As the bees collect pollen, they mold it into a solid mass on their hind legs. One may observe a honeybee busily going from flower to flower with little yellow pods on the outside of its hind legs. This is pollen the bee has gathered. As she gathers it, her body becomes completely dusted with grains of pollen, which are then transferred to the waiting stigmata of other flowers. The stigma is the part of the pistil of a flower which receives pollen grains.

Since the average honeybee hive needs somewhere between sixty and one hundred pounds of pollen each year for food, they must collect almost four million loads of pollen!

Again, remember that pollen, predigested by the workers, who secrete some kind of chemical from glands in their heads, determines whether the egg will become another worker or a queen!

How is this done? Scientists have no idea. How can a tiny brain of an insect contain such remarkable intelligence, such mind-boggling instinct?

A beehive is like one living organism living in perfect symbiotic relationship with flowers, flowering trees and plants, clover, and other flowering grasses. Neither can survive without the other!

Yet, the beehive is, in itself, an incredibly complex symbiotic organism, with a queen, drones, workers, eggs, larvae, and pupae all present in their various perfectly developed stages.

Which came first? For either to “evolve” separately is utterly impossible. For either to survive separately is impossible.

Anyone who believes in evolution believes in pure myth—the fanciful, imaginary guesswork of those who reject the Eternal Creator God. “Theistic” evolution is merely an attempt to accept evolution as the “method” a “God” of some kind used to create all the myriad forms of life on earth. As a theory, it is equally untenable with Darwinian evolution.

The next time you taste honey, take a moment to reflect on the wonders of God’s creation, on how the little honeybee serves mankind, and on how life could not exist without the bees.

The word honey is mentioned almost fifty times in the Bible. Its first mention is found in Genesis 43, in the moving account of elderly Jacob, sending his sons again into Egypt, to determine if Joseph is alive: “And their father Israel [Jacob] said unto them, If it must be so now, do this; take of the best fruits in the land in your vessels, and carry down this man a present, a little balm, and a little honey, spices, and myrrh, nuts, and almonds: Take double money in your hand; and the money that was brought again in the mouth of your sacks, carry it again in your hand…” (Genesis 43:11,12).

Honey has been known from ancient times. Honeybees have been found preserved in amber, which scientists know to be thousands of years old. They are exactly like the honeybees of today. They are not part bees, and part something else, but perfectly formed bees.

Fourteen times, the Promised Land is described as a “land that floweth with milk and honey” (Exodus 3:8,17; 13:5, etc.), and is a special feature of the account of Samson, the slain lion, and the riddle (Judges 14).

Samson had slain a lion, and, when he returned, the drying bones of the carcass contained a swarm of bees that had built a hive, and were manufacturing honey.

Samson “turned aside to see the carcass of the lion: and, behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcass of the lion. And he took thereof in his hand and went on eating, and came to his father and mother, and he gave them, and they did not eat: but he told not them that he had taken the honey out of the carcass of the lion” (Judges 14:8,9).

Beekeepers know that bees will not sting unless they are pressed, or hurt. A sudden movement will cause them to sting, whereas a slow, gentle movement will not. Many beekeepers do not wear gloves. No doubt, Samson knew how to gently pick up a piece of honeycomb without being stung.
Jesus ate honey.

After Jesus Christ was resurrected, He appeared a number of times to His disciples. On one occasion, He appeared to them in Jerusalem: “And He said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts [doubts] arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see: for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when He had thus spoken, He shewed them His hands and feet. [The livid scars were plainly visible; evidence of his torture and death on the stake.] And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, He said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and of an honeycomb. And He took it, and did eat before them” (Luke 24:37-43).

Here was the very Creator of all life, proving that He was alive—that He had been resurrected from the dead—by the familiar, everyday act of eating with them!

In this case, eating honey directly from a honeycomb. Considering He was the resurrected Savior of the world, and was also the Creator of honeybees, do you think this act of eating fish and honey was not an inspiring, moving act? Any evolutionist who had been present (there were no evolutionists then, so far as we know) would no doubt have dropped to his knees and said, with Thomas, “My Lord, and my God!”

What Honeybees Do For Us

The beekeeping and honey-selling industry is very large in the United States, Canada, and Australia, as well as in many other countries.

More than five and a half million hives are tended by beekeepers, and close to a half-million pounds of honey are sold each year.

Beeswax is used in making candles, chewing gum, cement, adhesives, liniments, cosmetics, polishes, transparent paper, electrical insulators, and lubricants, among other things. In a very real sense, bees and man live in symbiotic relationship. Bees pollinate the flowering plants and fruit trees, and produce wax and honey, all of which is vital for man’s life on this earth—his comforts, pleasures, and his survival.

Today, however, this priceless little part of God’s creation is threatened! Recent articles have revealed that a tiny mite is attacking many hives in the United States, and destroying the bees. To large orchard growers, and farmers growing food crops, beekeepers and their hives are very much in demand.

It would be a true catastrophe if the bees were to disappear. Is the threat to the honeybee another of the curses God said He would bring upon His people who forget Him and His laws?

Every detail of the life of a honeybee is worth study, for it is absolutely awesome. Just how awesome is illustrated by this admission from science: “Men have studied the honeybee for hundreds of years. But we still do not know how the worker bees know what to do or when to do it. We do not know how the workers decide when to build more honeycomb, how they know when the developing bees need more food, or how they decide to start queen cells in which to raise new queen bees” (The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. II, pp. 154,155).

It would require enough pages to fill a book to discuss all the phenomenal facts available about bees. Such books have been written by scientists, and are available through book stores and in public libraries. Look up “apiary,” or “apiarist.”

How bees mate, how they swarm, how they manufacture honey, how they reproduce, how the colony is organized—every detail about bees is truly astounding, and well worth your time to study.

As you do, give thanks to God Almighty, your Creator, who gives you every breath of air your breathe; who thought out, designed, and produced all life! Studying into His fabulous creation—pondering it, thinking about it, meditating upon it—is a way to worship God!

How utterly barren is the life of an evolutionist, who does not know the true God!

How to Come to Know God

Such studies are not merely an “argument” against evolution. They are much, much more. God says the way to truly come to know the truth about our invisible Creator, who dwells in the spiritual dimension, is by studying into the things He has made!

Just as an artist is known by his paintings, or an architect by his buildings, so our Creator is known by His marvelous handiwork.

Paul wrote, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold back [margin] the truth of God in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest [evident] to them; for God hath shewn it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world [by looking at the material creation] are CLEARLY seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20).

The power of God, the mind of God, and God’s love toward His creation are clearly seen by looking deeply into what He has made! Your own mind and your physical body is a part of God’s creation. Every insect, every bird, fish, and animal, is a part of God’s creation.

The awesome universe declares His glory, as does our sun, our moon, the progression of the seasons, and the daily rotation of the earth. Gravitation, the mysterious, gentle power which holds our universe and solar system together, and which holds you firmly on the earth, and determines the limits of the seas, is a manifestation of the power and majesty of God.

Lungfish, bees, all mammals, and all plants are a fabulous part of the wondrous works of God, and they display His power.

It is not necessary to cave in to evolutionists, believing in theistic evolution. Such a concept makes God out to be a vague, distant, “First Cause,” a God who once put together all the forces and energies which govern the universe, then left His creation alone, so that a chance strike of lightning in a primordial swamp might have produced life!

Such a belief rejects divine revelation. It rejects the Bible out of hand, and therefore rejects Christ, for “beginning at Moses[including Genesis!] and all the prophets, He expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning Himself” (Luke 24:27).

God’s Word is true. God is the Creator of the universe! And who was the member of the divine sovereign Godhead who did the creating?

“In the beginning was the Word [Greek: logos, meaning spokesman], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God:…All things were made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that was made:…And the Word was madeflesh and dwelt [Greek: tabernacled] among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth” (John 1:1-14).

Your Savior was the member of the divine family who, together with His Father, thought out, planned, and brought into being lungfish and honeybees. He is your Creator and mine, as well!

As David declared, “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands” (Psalm 102:25). He cried out, “O Lord, how manifold are thy works! in wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches!” (Psalm 104:24).

The next time you see a tiny honeybee buzzing from flower to flower, then making a “beeline” for his hive, remember to praise God for His mighty works!

You may copy and distribute this information only to friends and family without changes, without charge and with full credit given to the author and publisher. You may not publish it for general audiences.

This publication is intended to be used as a personal study tool. Please know it is not wise to take any man’s word for anything, so prove all things for yourself from the pages of your own Bible.

The activities of the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association are paid for by tithes, offerings and donations freely given by Christians and co-workers who are dedicated to preaching the gospel according to Jesus Christ.

The post Did God Use Evolution To Create Life? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

Evolutionists say there is no God. They say you and I evolved over aeons of time; that life began billions of years ago in some way, perhaps by a “chance strike of lightning in a primordial soup of methane and ammonia,’ and gradually evolvedfrom simple viruses and amoebas to complex plants and animals. Is evolution true? Can it be proved?

There are almost as many hypotheses for the beginning of life as there are atheistic evolutionists to propose them. Did we come from extreme cold, or extreme heat? Serious scientists propose each extreme. Did life arise from “cracks in rocks,” or from “polka-dotted air bubbles in the sea”? Did we come from “green scum,” or from “brown slime”? All of the above, and many more, have been proposed.

Can evolution be proved? Many seem to think so. Visit any of our natural history museums, where the evolutionary process is laid out for us in fabulous display, complete with reconstructed fossils of eohippus and brontosaurus. Our daily fare from science writers reporting the latest archaeological find which allegedly pushes the age of man back even further into the dimmest reaches of time: the latest bones dug up in the Olduvai Gorge; fossils found near the bottom of the Grand Canyon; new and hitherto undiscovered kinds of dinosaurs–all seem to support the theory of evolution.

But is evolution true? Can it be proved? For if it cannot, then there must be some other explanation for life on this earth.

Most Education is Anti-God

Modern education is based wholly on the evolutionary concept. Whether one studies mathematics, biology, paleontology, zoology, history, sociology, astronomy–whatever discipline-the evolutionary concept dominates. Museums are arranged so as to show young school-aged visitors the story of evolution.

Beautifully-done artists’ concepts of primordial seas with a chance lightning strike illustrates how life “might have” begun. Then, in the museums and textbooks, worms, sponges, and tiny one-celled animals are arranged in careful order, leading to trilobites, fishes, and eventually amphibians, quadrupeds, dinosaurs, birds, monkeys, and men.

Wide-eyed children, generation after generation of them, are conducted through school texts and field trips to such museums which enforce the evolutionary concept in their minds.

Then, when it is “Sunday-go-to-meeting” time, earnest parents take those same children to the neighborhood church. There, they sit in pews, sing songs, attend children’s Bible classes, and hear about Adam and Eve, about God and the devil, about Christ on the cross.

As adults, isn’t this process a little confusing?

When the average church-going person reads the latest article by the newspaper science writer about a bone dug up somewhere which allegedly “proves” greater antiquity for the human race, pushing it back millions and millions of years, how does such a person deal with a religion which claims God created Adam only about 6,000 years ago?

And what of the so-called “intelligentsia” of our peoples; the think-tanks, universities, research institutes, and the like, who advise government and help shape policy? What do these men think of presidents who attend church, place their hand on the Bible and say “so help me, God” in their inaugural ceremony, and stand uncomfortably by as Dr. Billy Graham addresses God in prayer? Do evolutionists possess a cynical tolerance? Do they regard all those who act like they believe in God as eccentric, superstitious? One would so assume.

But evolution is not proved. It is merely a theory, and a theory so incredibly flawed, so filled with illogical suppositions, so shot through with error so as to be painfully humorous.

Evolution is a religion, after all, a faith, which is grounded in missing evidence, and therefore, like the religion it derides, based upon the “evidence” of things not seen–like billions of missing intermediate species, which would represent millions of times the species found in the fossil record.

If Evolution is True-HOW Did it Happen?

Evolution has never answered some of the most logical, basic questions about our world.

Evolutionists don’t like tiresome old questions like, “Which came first, the chicken, or the egg?” Such a question is sure to bring hoots of derision from evolutionists and sarcastic reference to the Scopes trial. But which did come first? Do you know? Do they?

Which came first, bacteria, or plants? Which came first, plants, or animals? Which came first, flowering fruits, or the honeybee required to pollinate them? Which came first, the tiny plankton upon which whales feed, or the whales? Which came first, yeast cells, or enzymes? Which came first, sea anemones, or clownfish? Which came first, the lichen, or the alga, existing in symbiotic harmony, neither capable of surviving without the other? Which came first, male, or female? Where did sex come from? Did it evolve from dividing cells? Did “simple, one celled animals” experience orgasm upon division? These, and literally thousands of valid questions like them must be asked of evolution: questions like, What is law and where did it come from? What is gravity, and why does it act the way it does? What is matter, and where did it come from? What is energy, and how did it begin?

But let’s begin right here at home, with ourselves.

Were We Once Only a Blob?

Suppose you painted a green blob, and hung it over your fireplace. When visitors come, you point to the blob and proudly say, “That is an amoeba–my ancestor!” It’s bound to be a conversation piece.

Where did you come from? From your parents, of course. Most of us know the names of our grandparents. Some of us even know the names of our great-grandparents. But when it comes to our great, great-grandparents and those who came before us, most of us know nothing of them. Yet, we know they existed. We know that we are here because somewhere, somehow, over periods ofthousands of years human beings met, married, and produced children.

We had human parents. At what distant point in time were our parents not human?

Did your ancestors and mine once inhabit caves, shape crude flint spears to hunt mammoths, and drag their women about by the hair? Did we once climb trees, shed our gills for lungs, replace our fins with feet, and develop skin instead of scales? Evolution pleads for time to answer such questions, assuming that, given enough time, practically anything is possible. Is that assumption true? Is literally anything possible, given enough time?

In time, could amoebas become complex organisms, which became fish, which crawled ashore, which grew legs, and wings, and hair, and then finally stood up and walked about, becoming men? Is this possible, if enough time is allowed?

Some years ago, students in a college classroom were given an example of how evolution might have occurred. “Suppose you had a monkey and a typewriter,” the professor said. “Look at the keyboard of a typewriter. Now, suppose you had paper in the typewriter, and the monkey began playing with the keys. How long do you suppose it would take for the monkey to accidentally strike the proper keys to produce a two letter word like ‘on, ‘or,’ ‘it,’ ‘so,’ ‘to,’ or ‘by’?”

“Only a few minutes!” piped one enthusiastic student.

“Excellent!” Said the professor.

“Now, how long do you suppose it would require the monkey to accidentally strike enough letters to produce a three-letter word? A four-letter word? A word of three syllables?”

The students pondered this. Giving their imaginations free rein, they supposed that in some weeks or months, or years, or aeons (and countless thousands of generations of new monkeys), the monkey could finally produce a word like “colloquial,” or “evolution.” This amazing accomplishment would require an infinitude of time, of course.

“Now then,” the professor said, smugly, “How long before the monkey could accidentally type the entire Encyclopedia Britannica in all its volumes?”

Does this begin to daunt even the imagination of students in an evolutionary classroom? It should. How long before our monkey would type every book in the Library of Congress? Because, believe it or not, it would be easier for our playful ape to do so than for you, with your skeletal, muscular, digestive, circulatory, and nervous systems, and your mind, to have somehow evolved from lovesick amoeba!

The professor might have given skeptical students another analogy: “Suppose a truck backed up to a home site and dumped a load of bricks. Do you suppose it is possible that one brick might land, entirely by accident, perfectly aligned atop another brick?”

No student in his right mind would doubt this, even if he pondered why any sensible brick layer or truck driver would dump bricks at random, breaking many of them, when they are supposed to be hoisted off the truck on pallets, or what earthly use those two bricks would have, without mortar between them.

But our undaunted Professor continues: “Now, given enough time, dumping dozens of loads each day, continuing for millions and billions of years,do you suppose he could dump three, then four, then five bricks atop each other? Is it possible, given enough time, for him to dump, in place, a five-room house with two fireplaces, bay window, snug den, a large master bedroom, a gleaming, modern kitchen with about ninety-two energy slaves awaiting m’lady’s whim, a fire burning in the fireplace, and a Mercedes parked in the garage?”

If any student, anywhere, answered “yes” to such a question, he needs to spend lengthy sessions with a psychiatrist, or perhaps apply for membership in the Flat Earth Society.

For, believe it or not, it would be more likely for our careless truck driver to accidentally “dump” a beautiful home out of the back of his truck than for you, with your marvelous skeletal, muscular, nervous, digestive, and circulatory systems, your vital organs, your fabulous gift of eyesight, and your ability to think and reason to have accidentally evolved by random happenstance!

Suppose you were walking home from school one day, and you saw the gleam of yellow metal in a weed-choked lot. Stooping to investigate, you found a fine Swiss watch lying there. It is a Patek Phillipe–a jeweled, precision, waterproof, shockproof wristwatch. How did it come to be there? Is it possible that, given enough time, that precision piece of equipment just gradually collected itself together, wound itself up, and finally lay there, waiting to be found?

Wouldn’t your logical mind say to yourself that someone has lost his watch?

Our universe, our solar system, and our earth are all like that watch, which had a maker. They work. They run. They are living, in the sense that they show awesome power, force, and energy. Distant galaxies emit radio waves through space. Blazing stars send light into the blackness of distances so great they must be measured in “light years.”

Our world turns on its axis once daily. The moon journeys around our world once each lunar month. Our world, with its moon, journeys around our sun, wobbling, or tilting slightly, once each year, producing seasons

Why? How? What caused this process? How did it begin?

To answer such questions requires painstaking investigation into the known laws of science; laws involving the conservation of energy, biogenesis, symbiotics, inertia, gravity, magnetism, and the laws governing all matter. One must determine what is “matter.” Where did it come from? One must ponder ultimate origins.

Of course, the students never thought to ask the professor, “Where did you get the monkey? Who produced the typewriter? Who fed the monkey for all those billions of years? How did the typewriter last that long? What about all those billions of tons of paper? Who cut down all those millions of pine trees, built all those pulpwood mills, processed all that pulp into paper? Who drove the trucks to the mills?” Or, “Where did all the other monkeys come from–the males and females who continued propagating to produce new generations of monkeys?” For, as each monkey grew old, having managed to peck out only a simple sentence, it had to be replaced by another monkey who had to start from the very beginning. Could baby monkeys somehow “learn to type” by watching their parents’ bumbling attempts to accidentally type a three-syllable word? Wouldn’t they rather be off gathering bananas?

Obviously, instead of accidentally typing whole pages and books as a result of limitless time, the trick question was limited to the lifetime of only one monkey, who could no more pass on his experience with typewriter keys to his progeny than he could grow gills and return to the sea.

Our students didn’t think to ask questions like, Where did the monkeys get all those bananas? And who seated them at the typewriter? And was it an IBM, or an L.C. Smith, or a Corona? Oh, there might be many questions thoughtful students could have asked. But they didn’t. They were there to pass this course, not flunk it!

But if they didn’t mind upsetting their evolutionary-minded professor, or getting an “F’ for the course, they might have asked: Where did you get the truck? Where did the engine in the truck come from? Who designed the internal combustion engine? Who pumped, piped, refined, and sold the gasoline to the driver? Who tended the rubber plantation, obtained sap from the trees, processed it, and manufactured the tires for the truck? Who invented the battery, ignition system, electrical lights, and the hydraulic dumping mechanism for the truck? Who invented the gears, so the truck could go from forward to reverse? Who mined the iron, tin, nickel, chromium, copper, manganese, and other metals; invented the processes of metallurgy to combine them; then manufactured the steel for the engine block, the frame, the precision gears, pistons, tappets, valves, and all the nuts and bolts of the truck? Who invented the water cooling system for the internal combustion engine?

Even more importantly, Where did the drivercome from? Who knew how to operate the truck? Who were his parents, and their parents? Where did you get the bricks? Who made them? Why did the bricks fall when they were dumped? Where did gravity come from? How did millions of generations of drivers continually keep journeying to a brickyard to load up with another load of bricks? Who were their wives? Where did their children go to school to learn how to succeed them as a truck driver? How did the bricks stay together if there was no mortar to hold them fast? How could a truck load of bricks contain windows, doors, appliances, carpets, rafters, joists, beams, gypsum board, paint, hardware, cabinets, and electrical connections to the source of power? And one precocious student might have asked, “How come they didn’t fire the truck driver for dumping those bricks that way, when they should have been off-loaded on a pallet?”

There are plenty of “if’s” and “perhapses” implicit in the self-deceived professor’s imaginary analogies, aren’t there?

The wildly-imagining professor is exactly like all other evolutionists. They begin with matter; with an orderly universe; with law, energy, magnetic fields, gravity, isostasy, the laws governing moving bodies–thousands of other laws, such as those controlling matter, like how crystals form, and how water is present on earth in three forms.

They begin with their imaginary ape having just typed the entire encyclopedia! But apes do not accidentally type encyclopedias any more than explosions in electrical shops produce computers, or explosions in print shops produce books, or explosions in truck factories produce trucks.

But let’s not wake up the professor. He is blind,after all, and according to the Bible, worse than merely spiritually blind.

“The fool hath said in his heart,’There is no God.’ Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: There is none that doeth good” (Psalm 53:1,2).

Evolutionists Worship a “Primal Urge”

If egocentric, vain, craven, lustful, greedy, mortal man ever admits there is a God, he must then deal with whether or not that God is the RULER Of His creation; whether or not man must OBEY God!

Evolutionists worship at the altar of “blind chance,” or some mystical, unseen “force” that somehow caused each tiny so-called “simple” (there is no such thing as “simple” when one is dealing with life) one-celled plants, like yeast cells, to “bud,” then divide, creating an exact clone of its parent. They somehow assume some power, or force, caused a spider (there are thousands of varieties of arachnida) to weave a beautifully symmetrical web, instead of merely stalking, then pouncing upon, its prey.

They muse that some mysterious impulse, some “urge,” caused animals and fish to “evolve”; that a “loosely-hanging scale” on an ungainly caiman eventually “evolved” into a feather; and that crocodiles and hummingbirds are related!

Of course, this “force,” this “primal urge,” before whom they bow and scrape does not tell them how to live. It does not define the difference between moral behavior and sin; nor does it inform them about the purpose for their human existence, and their ultimate destiny. Later you will see some of their own admissions. Shockingly, one famous evolutionist came out and admitted their libido was a driving force in their philosophical and theoretical choices; that admitting God exists would interfere with their sexual preferences.

Now, let’s get to it.

Let’s begin with the creation itself, with the universe, the earth, and all matter.

Creation Requires A Creator

There are literally thousands of proofs that a Creator God exists. The proof of a Creator is found in His creation, in what He has designed, produced, and presently sustains. As the Bible says, “The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen…” (Romans 1:20).

We know a house had an architect and a builder. We know an automobile had a manufacturer. We know a painting had a painter. We know a chicken came from an egg. We know a carrot came from a carrot seed. We know a child had parents. We know a watch had a maker.

It is bovine stupidity to deny that creation had a Creator. To believe that the human mind “evolved” from simple, one-celled animals is, on the one hand, a carnal-minded, God-rejecting, supercilious example of intellectual vanity, and on the other hand, the very epitome of doltish stupidity, as you will see.

One of the most fundamental proofs of God is the CREATION which had to have a CREATOR.

By “creation,” I mean everything that is, everything that exists, everything composed of matter; the universe, the solar system, our earth, and all life upon it.

Dr. Werner Von Braun said: “Atheists all over the world have… called upon science as their crown witness against the existence of God. But as they try, with arrogant abuse of scientific reasoning, to render proof there is no God, the simple and enlightening truth is that their arguments boomerang. For one of the most fundamental laws of natural science is that nothing in the physical world ever happens without a cause. There simply cannot be a creation without some kind of Spiritual Creator…In the world around us we can behold the obvious manifestations of the Divine plan of the Creator…We are humbled by the powerful forces that move the stars, and the purposeful orderliness of nature that endows a tiny and ungainly seed with the ability to develop into a beautiful flower.

“The better we understand the intricacies of the universe and all that it harbors, the more reason we have found to marvel at God’s creation.”

The late Dr. Von Braun knew about “powerful forces,” for he not only developed the V1 and V2 terror rockets during World War II, but became head of America’s space program.

Obviously, a study of only a part of creation would require enough books to fill a very large library. Every conceivable physical science would be involved: astronomy, biology, geology, and all their divisions such as historical and dynamic geology, microbiology, and genetics–a vast field of special disciplines involving every aspect of creation.

We will take a look at various examples of most of these disciplines, often with tongue-in-cheek, when we see the ludicrous evolutionary claims, and compare atheists’ assertions with laws of chance and probability.

We have already touched upon major aspects of creation. Certainly, the atom, atomic structure, and Einstein’s theory of relativity are vastly important. More of this under another vitally important proof of God, having to do with law.

Nothing is more immediately obvious, when thinking of”the creation,” than the rocks beneath our feet. To illustrate only a few of these thousands of challenges to the vain theory of evolution, let’s investigate the so-called “geologic succession of strata”–a major foundation of the evolutionary theory–which states that the “oldest,” and therefore “simplest” and “most primitive” fossil forms of life are invariably found at or near the bottom; that progressively more complex forms of life are found in younger strata; and that horses, camels, mastodons, sabre-toothed tigers, and man are found in the most “recent.”

Can such assertions be substantiated by the billions of tons of evidence lying around us? Let’s see.

Let’s go to the bedrock.

Are the Oldest Rocks Always On the Bottom?

Evolutionary geology is built around the presupposition that our earth consists of layers of rock found in succession as they were deposited over aeons of time; that the very oldest rocks, containing no fossils, are at the bottom; that the “Archeozoic” rocks contain only “simple” life forms; that “Mesazoic” rocks contain ever more complex life forms until one arrives at the most “recent” strata, such as the ice ages (Eocene, Miocene, Pleistocene, and so on), where one finds mammoths and man.

Further, evolutionary hypotheses are based upon the supposition that all these rocks were laid down over vast aeons of time; that the fossils in the rocks were not laid down suddenly, as a result of great catastrophes, like a worldwide flood!Catastrophism, or the evidence that mass death and sudden extinction of species occurred, is anathema to many evolutionists. The flood of Noah’s time is viewed by them as an ancient Hebrew beddy-bye story, a fable. They dismiss it as a causal factor in the deposition of strata.

Evolutionists are fond of arranging the fossils from “simple to complex” in museums and in illustrations in textbooks. There are insurmountable difficulties with the so-called “geologic succession of strata,” however. Let’s take a look at only a few of them.

First, there is no place on earth where the entire geologic succession of strata can be found.Obviously, the concept of the earth’s sedimentary rocks being found in orderly form, from most ancient to most recent, is impossible to begin with. Where did the rocks come from?

Rocks are either sedimentary (water deposited), metamorphic (formed by changes caused by faulting, pressure, and so on), or igneous (volcanic). Since there are no fossils in igneous rocks, and since there are virtually no fossils in metamorphic rocks, scientists are limited to investigating the water-borne deposits, such as limestone and shale, to establish an age for the strata.

The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them.The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is. As we shall see, evolutionary geology immediately discards data facts-evidence in the amount of billions of tons of rock, whole mountain ranges, mammoth regions of the earth, where the fossils found in the rocks contradict their theories.

True science always alters the theory to accept proven facts. Not so with evolution. Facts–tons upon tons of them–are ignored in order to cling to a foolish theory. To illustrate this point, let’s get right to one of the most poignant, and embarrassing, proofs.

“Upside Down”

When you walk into your bedroom and see the bed made, you probably suppose your wife spread the sheet on the bed prior to the cover, and the cover prior to the bedspread. She would look a little silly putting the bedspread on first, and then burrowing beneath it, attempting to spread the sheet. If she had done so, out of caprice, there would probably be evidence pointing to the fact, for it would be virtually impossible to do a neat job unless she once again straightened the bedspread.

When you view layers of rock as exposed in highway cuts, canyons (like the Grand Canyon of Arizona) and river banks, and you see massive layers, sometimes twenty or thirty feet thick, seemingly as smooth and cohesive as if they had been mixed in a blender, lying conformably atop each other in orderly succession, it is logical to assume the layers on the bottom (if no evidence of faulting, such as tilted, fractured strata, isoclines, geosynclines, and so on, is present) were deposited first, then the ones immediately above them, and, lastly, the layer on the top.

You would be quite correct, of course. However, evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so-called “younger” strata are often found BENEATH so-called “older” strata. When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, they seek to explain away billions of tons of contrary evidence. In many places on earth, their arrangement of fossils is challenged by miles of rocks where the fossils are out of proper order, sometimes “upside down.” Not that they are really “upside down,” please note, but that it appears “older” fossils are found in rocks above “younger” fossils, when these “older” fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed! Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down, and are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, over thrusts, or any other activity.

What kind of force would be required to superpose massive layers of rock, weighing millions of tons, atop other layers? Why, the kind of forces associated with mountain-building: over thrusts, isoclines, synclines, massive earthquakes on a scale never experienced in the history of mankind–the kind of earthquakes which caused the upheavals of the Alps, the Andes, Himalayas, and the Rocky Mountains, all of which have fossil shells at their highest elevations, showing they were once covered by shallow seas.

Any such movement of vast land masses would cause grinding, crushing destruction of the rocks closest to the moving layers, reforming them into “metamorphic” rocks, destroying most, if not all, fossils. Certainly, there could not survive such delicate fossil forms as worm tracks, ferns and leafs, ripple marks, and the like. Even a layman could look at two layers of rock, and determine if “slickensides” and various metamorphosed rocks were present, showing clear evidence of massive movement.

But what if the layer of rock (stratum) containing the so-called “older” fossils, and the stratum containing the so-called “younger” fossils beneath it show absolutely no evidence of any twisting, faulting, or movement? What if there is perfect conformity between them? You and I know that when mud is deposited by flooding, then gradually hardens, it begins to crack. Then, it erodes. Animals walk about upon it. Wind blows. Summer storms come along. In other words, any deposit of alluvial soil, slowly drying as the water which carried it there recedes, will show obvious evidence of the passage of time. Especially when that “time” is assumed to be measured in the millions or even billions of years!

Yet, in many cases, the two layers with their so-called “upside down” fossil record are lying perfectly, smoothly, uninterruptedly together, as if the tide of mud which had deposited the bottom layer had no sooner receded when another flow of different mud, containing different forms of life, came from another direction and was deposited immediately atop it. As if, obviously, the life forms imprisoned within the two layers of mud lived contemporaneously, and died in the same catastrophe, instead of the life form atop the other being millions of years “older” then the “younger” fossil form beneath!

Any forensic scientist, when presented with such folly during a murder trial, would rip it apart in seconds. No jury would ever say, as do evolutionists, that the fossils in the upper layer are obviously millions of years older than the fossils beneath them!

When one cannot even slip a thin knife between two smoothly-mixed layers of sandstone; when there is absolutely no evidence of any erosion, or overthrust faulting (which would crush the rock, grind it, metamorphose it, and cause a completely different kind of rock structure), then one must assume the rocks were deposited exactly as they appear–the older on the bottom, and the younger on the top, like your sheet and bedspread.

It must irritate evolutionists to no end that there are many, many places in our earth where supposedly “older” fossils are found ON TOP of supposedly “younger” fossils. Encountering these puzzling occurrences caused evolutionary geologists, long ago, to invent excuses as to how such an embarrassing aberration could have come to pass. Further, evolutionary geologists assert that such strata are merely guilty of “deceptive conformity.”

How do evolutionists arrive at such a conclusion? Once locked in to their theory, once denying there could have been zoological provinces containing vastly different species (such as coelacanths and man) contemporaneously, once insisting that their supposed “geologic succession of strata” is correct, they stolidly refuse to alter the theory to suit the facts.

Instead, they ignore the facts, or twist them into grotesque shapes, then invent incredible fairy tales, which are fallacious on their face, in order to cling to their empty theories. That this is patently dishonest, and anything but “scientific,” seems not to bother them in the least. Like mesmerized, wide-eyed fanatics listening to a demented cult leader, they plod along their chosen path zombie-like, refusing to listen to logic or reason, denying what their own eyes plainly tell them.

Now, how do evolutionists know which fossil forms are “oldest”? Supposedly, because they are found “on the bottom,” or in that layer of rock lying atop ancient granites and schists, the oldest layer containing fossils. But evolutionists have not truly found the “bottom” layer!

Which Layer of Fossil-Bearing Rock is on the Bottom?

Which stratum is the oldest of all fossil-bearing rock, and therefore (according to evolution) contains the “earliest” and “simplest” of all life forms?

Long ago, evolutionists used the order of fossils found in a few regions in Western Europe and New York State to establish their evolutionary column. They have assumed that fossil forms of ancient life are invariably found in the same orderall over the world.

Such is not the case. In fact, evolutionary geologists have not yet determined, with any degree of certainty, which layer of rock is the “bottom” insofar as the fossil record is concerned.

As an eminent geologist says: “For any given limited locality, where stratigraphy can be followed out, the lowest beds are certainly the oldest. But we can make no progress by such a method when we come to deal with the world at large, for actual stratigraphical relationships can be proved over only very limited areas.

“These beds may be the lowest in this locality, may rest on the granite or crystalline schists, and have every appearance of antiquity. But other beds containing very different fossils, are in precisely this position elsewhere, and where stratigraphical order can no more prove the relative age of their fossils than the overlap of scales on a fish proves those at the tail to be older than those at the head” (Evolutionary Geology and the New Catastrophism, by Price: p. 78, emphasis mine).

Price goes on to show how “any kind of fossiliferous rock whatever, even ‘young’ Tertiary rocks, may rest upon the Archaean or Azoic series, or may themselves be almost wholly metamorphosed or crystalline, thus resembling in position and outward appearance the so-called ‘oldest’ rocks” (ibid., p. 79).

In his chapter on “Finding Bottom,” Price concludes, “I see no escape from the acknowledgment that the doctrine of any particular fossils’ being essentially older than others is a pure invention, with absolutely nothing in nature to support it” (ibid., P. 87).

Evolutionary geology operates on a false assumption that the layers of rock on the earth are invariably found in the same order, like the layers of an onion. Obviously the whole world is not like an onion, with the oldest rocks on the bottom, progressing upward until arriving at the most “recent” rocks, for the earth is round, after all, and each layer of sedimentary rock was water borne, and had to come from some other area, where the materials the water carried were scoured by massive floods, tides, rivers, and so on. Logically, the area so scoured is now absent the exact amount of materials when were deposited elsewhere.

“Bottom” is naturally where there are no fossils in evidence, according to evolutionary theory. Bottom means, usually, “bedrock” of granite and various schists; metamorphic rock, atop which one finds sedimentary rock, containing various fossil forms. But, as Price proves: “Since the life-succession theory [evolution] rests logically and historically on the biological form of Werner’s onion-coat notion that only certain kinds of rocks (fossils) are to be found at the ‘bottom,’ or next to the Archaean, or Primitive, and it is now acknowledged everywhere that any kind of rocks whatever may be thus situated [including Tertiaryrocks, containing fossils of mammoths and men!], it is as clear as sunlight that the life-succession theory rests logtheory and historically on a myth, and that there is no way of proving what kind of fossil was buried first” (ibid., p. 87).

In spite of such overwhelming evidence, evolutionists cling to their false theory. Students who intend entering the teaching field in the subjects of anthropology or paleontology are not taught from books such as those by Nelson, Price, Whitcomb and Morris, and a host of others. They are never told about such books, which are dismissed, completely ignored, by evolutionary geologists.

Yet, there are many studious works which completely dismantle the evolutionary theory. Outstanding examples are Darwin On Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson, published by Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., and Evolution–Possible or Impossible? by James E Coppedge, published by Zondenran, Grand Rapids, Michigan.  Price conclusively shows, most of the rocks of our earth prove great catastrophesoccurred in the past; and most of the sedimentary rocks, including miles and miles of coal beds, show very recent catastrophes, such as massive floods. Since God’s Word speaks of a globalflood, and the rocks cry out in a many-decibeied roar that a “FLOOD DID THIS,” Only a fool would ignore the obvious message of the rocks. It requires, on the average, about a forty foot thick layer of vegetation, ripped up, and water borne to then be crushed beneath subsequent layers of mud to form a seam of coal only one foot thick. Coal beds prove gargantuan catastrophes in the past, as do many, many other strata, such as marbles, which are sometimes formed from solid masses of sea bottom life.

But now, another of evolution’s inventive excuses: When they find their fossil record out of order, even though there is no evidence of any faulting or overthrusts to explain how “older” strata ended up atop “younger” strata, they tell their students this is a “deception”! Their stolid refusal to see the truth before their eyes reminds one of the cultic blatherings of a Jim Jones.

Why Are the Rocks “Out of Order”?

Look at the charts which show the so-called geologic succession of strata, and the assumed arrangements of fossil life found in the rocks.

Then, imagine the difficulty to a young, enthusiastic believer in evolution who reported his findings along a railway cut in Canada. He wrote: “East of the main divide the Lower Carboniferous is overlaid in places by beds of Lower Cretaceous age, and here again, although the two formations differ so widely in respect to age [?], one overlies the other without any perceptible break, and the separation of one from the other is rendered more difficult by the fact that the upper beds of the Carboniferous are lithologically almost precisely like those ofthe Cretaceous [above them]. Were it not for fossil evidence, one would naturally suppose that a single formation was being dealt with.”

Of course. But, because of the “fossil evidence,” these geologists decided that, even though one bed of rock containing “older” fossils lay atop another bed of rock containing “younger” fossils without any perceptible break; even though they were lithologically almost precisely like those…above them, they had to deny what their own eyes told them, and cling to their utterly false system of dating the fossils.

Therefore, though their conclusion was contrary to all observable facts involving millions of tons of rock, they clung to their theory, and discarded the facts.

This is commonplace among evolutionary geologists. It is also dishonest.

The truth is that the so-called “geologic succession of strata” claimed by evolutionists to have been laid down over immense aeons of time–was laid down very rapidly, almost simultaneously! This fact, proved by countless billions of tons of evidence in the Rocky Mountains, the Alps, the Himalayas-all over the world–completely destroys the evolutionary hypothesis that life gradually evolved from “simple to complex.”

“Deceptive Conformity”

All over the world, massive examples of so-called “deceptive conformity” exist. Evolutionary geologists would have us believe nature is “deceiving” us by having deposited in perfectly even, smooth, conformable fashion fossil-bearing strata containing so-called “older” fossil life forms atop much “younger” strata. Of course, to anyone who believes God; who believes the Noachian deluge completely covered the earth; that, in fact, the book of Genesis ushers us onto the scene after a global flood had covered the continents for an indeterminate period of time, these so-called “deceptive conformities” are not deceptive at all, but perfectly normal–laid down exactly as our eyes tell us. It is not the strata which are upside down, but the theories of God-rejecting atheists.

Study the “geologic succession of strata” carefully as you note the following:

(1) In Wyoming, a massive section of mountain consisting of Ordovician strata (dated, of course, by the fossils found therein) is found resting conformably atop Tertiary strata. Ordovician is supposedly more than 900 million years old, while Tertiary is a mere 100 million years old! Eight hundred million years supposedly passed between these layers, which are allegedly upside down, with the Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, and Jurassic all missing between them!

How could this be? How could hundreds of millions of years pass with no evidence of rains, winds, floods, or erosion?

No such thing occurred. The rocks are telling the truth. Evolutionists are not.

(2) In Montana, a vast layer ofAlgonkian (pre-Cambrian, and thus allegedly more than 1 billion years old) rests conformably atop Cretaceous strata.

(3) In Alberta, Canada, the same incredible phenomenon is observed, with Algonkian atop Cretaceous.

(4) In Switzerland, Tertiary is below Jurassic, which is below Permian, with no evidence of erosion, faulting, tilting, upthrusts, overthrusts or any other dynamic action to account for such a situation. There are literally thousands of such cases, all over the world (see The Deluge Story In Stone, by Nelson, pp. 137-151 ff).

Nelson says: “The different ‘ages’ when strata are supposed by modern geologists to have been laid on the sea bottoms are named in order in the so-called geological column…since the one ‘age’ supposedly followed the other, the strata of each ‘age’ should follow the other in regular order. So one would naturally think. But strata which are said by modern geologists to be of ‘Carboniferous Age’ Ecoal-bearing] are, it is admitted by them, found to rest in many places on the earth on suata of ‘Ordovician Age, and suata of ‘Pleistocene Age’ found to rest on strata of ‘Permian Age,’ and strata of ‘Cretaceous Age’ on strata of ‘Devonian Age,’ evenly and smoothly…where such things occur, i.e., where two strata, supposed to have been deposited in ‘ages’ that did not follow one another in natural succession, modem geologists say there exists ‘deceptive conformity”‘ (Ibid., p. 150,151).

Deceptive? How so? The evidence of the rocks, the evidence of massive mountains, and whole ranges of them is positive, absolute. Whether layman or professional geologists, the layers cry out, “We were deposited in precisely the fashion you see us now!” But because evolutionary geologists find fossils from socalled “older” strata, bearing trilobites and other “very ancient” life forms on top of Cretaceous strata, bearing fossils from very “recent” ages, such as horses, mammoths, camels, and the like, they insist the mountains are lying to them, “deceiving” them! One can only marvel at this kind of cultic, superstitious “faith” in an empty theory–marvel at the blind stupidity of human beings who will deny what their own eyes tell them.

It is proved beyond the shadow of doubt that the “geologic succession of strata” which is like an evolutionist’s Old Testament, is absolutely false!

All over the world, there are millions of tons of evidence which utterly destroy the neat arrangement of strata, and the ages attached to them, as seen in the chart.

Yet, the chart remains, like the idols of savages, the tarot cards of wizards, and the assertions by medieval “scientists” that flies came into existence by “spontaneous generation.”

No doubt, you will be reading in your newspapers or seeing on television within a few weeks information about the latest discovery: a bone, or part of a skeleton of yet another dinosaur, or some fragment of human remains.

You will be confidently told of its incredibly great age. You will be told how it fits into the evolutionary pattern.

When you do, ask yourself a few questions. Where did they find the bone? How far down was it? In what “stratum” was it allegedly lying’! What life forms were above it, and below it? How was its age established?

If it was established by the so-called “geologic succession of strata,” you are watching just so much entertainment, complete fiction.

God IS, and commands His creatures: “Seek ye the Eternal while He may be found, call ye upon Him while He is near: “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Eternal, and He will have mercy upon him, and to our God, for He will abundantly pardon” (Isaiah 55:6,7).

Only the fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”

You may copy and distribute this information only to friends and family without changes, without charge and with full credit given to the author and publisher. You may not publish it for general audiences.

This publication is intended to be used as a personal study tool. Please know it is not wise to take any man’s word for anything, so prove all things for yourself from the pages of your own Bible.

The activities of the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association are paid for by tithes, offerings and donations freely given by Christians and co-workers who are dedicated to preaching the gospel according to Jesus Christ.

The post Did Humans Evolve from Lower Life Forms, or Did God Create Adam? first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

When I have opportunity to return to the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, I always pause at a wind-swept, barren ridge overlooking a sand wash near the upper Vermillion River. The vista is breathtaking; Black Mountain, north of Craig, Colorado, over seventy miles away, stands out clearly from my 9,000 foot high vantage point.

I always stoop to examine the fossil-laden rocks beneath my boots. As my grandchildren have grown, I have usually pocketed a small number of the little, spiral-shaped pyramidellacea, fossil remains. Some are separate, most are jumbled together, their fossilized bodies composing the entire rock. They are a kind of snail which existed thousands of years previously when this region, now averaging about seven to ten thousand feet above sea level, was covered by shallow seas.

What are they doing here?

As everyone who has studied geology knows, the continent was once beneath the oceans. In the highest mountains are found fossil remains which once teemed in their millions beneath the waters of the sea. Yet, they were buried, suddenly, by some sort of gigantic catastrophe.

All over the world, the evidence is similar.

The famed “White Cliffs of Dover” are composed of the bodies of billions of shellfish, which, having been sorted according to sectional density, size, shape, and specific gravity, now appear as whitish chalk.

The little snails I find in Colorado were likewise sorted, then deposited according to specific gravity as mind-boggling waves once lashed this area, scouring the emerging mountain peaks, deeply carving them, depositing billions of tons of sediment atop each other as the tidal action caused by the moon caused the receding waters to ebb and flow.

As the centuries passed, and the tectonic plates groaned with the massive upheavals which thrust vast sections of the earth’s crust upward, forming the Rocky Mountains, the sediment hardened, then sometimes bent, twisted, and broke. Some of them were ground over the top of others, and some were shoved vertically upward, like the cracking ice floes of the Arctic Ocean, to be subjected to thousands of years of sun, wind and rain, metamorphosing, changing shape and texture.

The beauty of those incredible upthrusts, synclines, isoclines, hogbacks, mountains and valleys is breathtaking. It is like a book, which can be read, when one pauses to study how these mountains were formed; to ask, “what was the ocean doing this far inland?” Could the Bible have anything to say about such geological phenomena?

All geologists must admit that the continents were once covered by the seas. Actually, these inundations and emergences of the land masses of our earth could have occurred any number of times. The Bible specifically points out at least two catastrophic occurrences:

(1) The Bible begins with the earth covered with the seas, in stygian blackness, with cloud cover so thick no sunlight could penetrate until the divine command, “Let there be light,” and “Let the dry land appear” is given in Genesis, the first chapter. Therefore, according to scripture, there could have been a vast, indeterminate Period of time, even billions of years, during which the planet earth was covered with water.

(2) The Noachian deluge, a universal flood that destroyed all land animals except those contained in the ark, detailed in Genesis 6 and 7.

Gigantic catastrophes are anathema to evolutionists, except when they speculate about sudden “die offs,” such as the disappearance of the dinosaur. Otherwise, they strenuously argue against sudden deposition of major layers of rock through massive floods—especially the flood of Noah’s day, or the global flood depicted in the first chapter of Genesis.

“Uniformitarianism” Denies The Existence of God

God’s Word says “only the fool hath said in his heart, `There is no God!'” This world is filled with “educated” fools! As Paul wrote about the pagan philosophers and agnostics of his day, ” For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold [hold back; suppress; Greek kataballo] the truth in unrighteousness;

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them.

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made [the physical creation itself is testimony to God’s creative power], even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools” (Romans 1:18-22). There are countless thousands of “educated fools” today. Smug in their supposed intellectual superiority, they make the most fantastic assumptions and quantum leaps in their ridiculous theory, denying the billions of tons of evidence right before their eyes. All of nature is like a textbook. The myriad creatures which inhabit this earth from the teeming seas to the fetid jungles of Sumatra or Brazil; from the largest creatures to the tiniest bacteria; all is testimony to God’s majestic power; His creativity; that He is Life-giver, Creator, Designer, and Sustainer!

Though the entire world presents an obvious picture of massive catastrophes, evolutionists insist on gradualprocesses; “uniformitarianism” to suit their empty theories that all life forms evolved over interminable periods of time.

But the Rocky Mountains I have walked so many times display unimaginable catastrophes! So do the Swiss Alps; the Atlas Mountains, the Pyrenees, the Pamir Knot, the Himalayas, the Hindu-Kush, and the Andes. In most of the soaring peaks of our earth lie fossils which once dwelt in the sea!

Today, our seas still cover some 70 per cent of the crust of the earth. Now, just as they did thousands of years ago, they teem with life.

Generally, evolutionists speculate that all life began in the sea.

The oceans, then and now, are like a vast inextricably-linked web of life, or food chain, each part, from the smallest microorganisms to the largest whales forming but one link. Each is interrelated. Each is dependent upon all the others. The plain truth before our eyes is that all this chain of life had to be set in motion; had to become to be—to begin functioning—at the same moment in time. To fantasize that sponges became fish; fish grew legs and climbed trees; that some such “early mammals” slithered back into the seas and became whales; that whales then branched out into narwhals, humpbacks, pygmies, great blues, grey whales, and dolphins is absolutely ludicrous—a pure fantasy, and not remotely based upon either logic, or paleontological evidence.

Evolution is dealt a death blow once it can be proved that any one creature cannot exist without another, or several others; or, that any one creature exists for the sole purpose of contributing to, or directly aiding, supporting and providing for the existence of another creature—symbiosis!

Why? For the simple reason that if two completely different life forms can only survive in symbiotic relationship with the other, they both had to come into existence simultaneously!

Symbiosis: A Major Disproof of Evolutionary Theory!

There are dozens and dozens of examples of symbiosis throughout our ecosystem. “Symbiosis” means “living together.” Obviously, if two different species cannot exist unless they “live together,” each one protecting, supporting, feeding, or contributing to the survival of the other, then they had to begin life at the same time, which demolishes the theory of evolution. The thousands of life forms in our oceans prove that, in addition to demonstrating symbiosis in the case of a number of widely disparate species—the entire ocean represents symbiotic life in unimaginably interlocking, interdependent form!

There is a pyramid of life in our oceans; a food chain from the bottom of the “pyramid,” where tiny microorganisms, bacteria, diatoms, thousands of species of plants and animals exist, to the top, where whales, tuna, sharks and men harvest the ocean’s bounty.

Not only is there a web of life in the sea, but the seas themselves make life possible for all land animals, including man.

Without them, the world’s weather patterns would render major parts of the world, including places like Japan, Alaska, and the American Pacific Northwest, uninhabitable. The warm waters of the famed Japanese current are a major weather producer, a major source of vital food supplies, and the reason so many millions live in coastal regions affected by it.

Vast percentages of human beings absolutely depend upon life harvested from the seas for their existence.

Ecologists estimate that up to 70 percent of the oxygen available to all life on earth is produced by tiny diatoms in the seas!

Our oceans are like the land masses in one way; they are heavily populated with life in some areas, and like a vast, lifeless desert in others. “Rivers” in the ocean, or ocean currents, flow here and there in winding paths, not only controlling the world’s weather, but continually exchanging the waters of the seas at different levels, bringing nutrients, affecting fish migrations, and even human migration, as was proved by Thor Heyerdhal’s Kon Tiki.

Seventy percent of the earth’s surface is covered by water, but only about five percent of the ocean floor has been investigated. Astoundingly, it is estimated that about 5/6 of all life on earth lives within the upper, sunlit part of our seas.

Not only do the oceans regulate our weather patterns; bring monsoons and needed rains onto parched lands; supply man and sea creatures alike with a never-ending supply of nutrients—not only is life on the land only possible because of our oceans—the oceans themselves present to our view a little-known, interdependent, web of life or “food chain” which is indispensable to life in the seas, and all over the earth!

The vast majority of life in the seas is not represented by the food fishes, like tuna, haddock, sardines and the like, but by microscopic life, never seen by the human eye! Up to 99% of all life in the sea is microscopic!

This type of life is called “plankton.” It was given its name by the German scientist Ernst Haeckel, who called all the myriad life forms floating near the surface of both fresh water lakes and the seas “plankton.” Plankton consists of both plant and animal life.

In the seas, plankton is made up of both adult and young animals, larvae, jellyfish, tunisates, protozoans of all kinds, diatoms, bacteria, blue-green algae, red algae; a myriad of life forms feeding on each other, or existing in symbiosis.

Bottom-dwelling plants and crustacea release larvae which is free-swimming for a time, and which also form a part of the “plankton.” Even some of the plants have spores which are free-swimming, and have their own means of locomotion.

The Red Sea is named for the reddish algae which gives it its color. When observing “phosphorescence” in the waves, or wakes of ships, one is seeing millions of medusae, worms, and young crustacea, like shrimp, whose tiny bodies give off a strange, greenish-white glow.

Plankton generally lives within the top 100 feet of ocean water. This prodigious amount of hundreds of different forms of life makes up the base of the pyramid; is at the very bottom of the food chain in the sea. Because various fish and animals “graze” on this vast, pulsating, living group of organisms, plankton is sometimes called “the grass of the sea.”

But why is it that the world’s largest creature, the great blue whale, should feed on the smallest creatures? Observing the gigantic bodies and huge heads of a blue whale, one would assume they would be feeding on fat seals, dolphins, tuna; large numbers of very large fish! But no, instead, they are specially equipped to sift krill, the myriad kinds of tiny crustacea, fish and squid, including jellyfish, which in turn feed on plankton, from the water!

Just how, why, and when did the need to survive by eating krill occur to cause the great blue whale and all the other baleen whales to gradually develop baleen, replacing their huge teeth for strange-looking bristly curtains hanging down in their mouths?

Was it because all other forms of life in the sea suddenly disappeared? No? Then, if there were always plenty of fish in the sea—huge fish such as basking sharks, smaller whales, dolphins, marlin, and tuna, not to mention otters, seals, and many kinds of diving birds—what gave impetus to these huge creatures to “gradually” develop their “baleen” so they could sift the “krill” that feeds on plankton from huge gulps of sea water? It is seemingly a law of nature that, the larger the organism, the fewer number, and the smaller the organism, the larger number. At the bottom of the food chain lives uncounted trillions of microscopic life forms, each contributing to all the others; all of them providing food for the very smallest of the fishes and crustacea, which provide food for the larger fish and crustacea, which provide food for the very largest fish, which provides food for man.

To illustrate: the diatoms in the sea, which help provide oxygen for all mammals to breathe, make up about three fifths of all plankton. When provided the right amount of sunlight, diatoms can grow and divide at the rate of at least once each day. That means that only one little diatom could multiply to produce up to 200 billion cells in about a month. Once one understands the purpose for the diatoms, one begins to understand why such prodigious numbers.

Tiny ocean animals called “copepods” may consume as many as 120,000 diatoms each day. Herring then eat the copepods. In the belly of one herring were found 60,000 of them!

“Photosynthesis” and The “Chemists Of The Seas”

Diatoms synthesize food from a combination of sunlight and sea water. How? When? When did the very first little diatom “learn” to perform such a miraculous feat? How and when did the first mindless little diatom produce sugars and starches—the bread of all life—from “photosynthesis”? Of all photosynthesis which takes place on earth, about 70 percent takes place in the sea!

As a ballpark figure, yearly land production of sugars and starches within the cells of plants amounts to about 40 billion tons. But in the sea, the estimates soar to within 80 to 160 billion tons—at least twice as much; perhaps three times as much production as on the land.

What really is this “photosynthesis”?

The miraculous substance of the process is chlorophyll.

Paul Zahl, writing for National Geographic, admitted, “This miraculous substance plays the key role in enabling plants to combine sunlight and chemicals into nourishment for themselves and into food for other living things. Just as land animals graze on earth-bound plants, and in turn become meals for flesh eaters, so marine life pyramids on the one-celled “grasses of the sea.” (National Geographic, Feb. 1961, “How The Sun Gives Life To The Sea,” Paul A. Zahl, p. 200).

Astonishingly, this process is so amazing, so complicated (writers speak of it as a “miracle”) that the same author said, “So sensitive are the processes these organisms achieve in the creation of lifestuff from the ocean’s raw materials that they put man’s attainments as a chemist to shame. They [diatoms] use elements in such tiny traces that man, until recently, could not detect their existence!” (Ibid. p. 202). How ironic that, when man finally succeeded in detecting the existence of diatoms and the elements they utilize, he still could not “detect” the great Creator God who CREATED all that is, even though the evidence was right there under their microscopes!

Which came first, plankton, in all its myriad forms, or the fish which feed upon it? What did herring, anchovies, sardines, smelt, and hundreds of other varieties of small fish feed upon before the myriad forms of other life, producing plankton, “evolved”?

Obviously, the fish and their food sources all had to come into existence at the same time, just as all the flowering plants and the bees and insects that pollinate them had to do the same!

Two main factors control the growth of life in our oceans; the amount of sunlight available for photosynthesis, and the amount of nutrients contained in seawater. If both are not in perfect balance, plankton cannot survive. And if plankton cannot survive, all the fish, from tiny little anchovies to huge blue whales, cannot survive. And if the entire food chain in the seas does not survive, we humans do not survive!

Like a vast interdependent organism, our seas and all life upon the earth are inextricably interwoven, forming an intricate, symbiotic “web of life,” or “food chain” which sustains all life everywhere. This is precisely what Paul meant in the scripture in Romans 1!

This pyramid of life, dependent upon many things, such as available sunlight, temperatures at various ocean depths, and ocean currents, is like a complex chain. If only one of its links were missing, disaster would occur in the form of no plankton. That would mean all life in the sea would die.

One oceanographer wrote, “Death and decomposition complete the cycle [of life in the seas]. The organic material of both plants and animals is subjected to bacterial decay which releases again the carbon, phosphorous, and nitrogen needed for photosynthesis—all of which beings us back to where we came in.” In other words, the circle is closed; the chain is complete—life requires other forms of life to survive! Symbiosis again, which is absolutely fatal to the theory of evolution.

One evolutionist was truly puzzled over plankton. He had no idea which kind of creature, in a cyclical form of life like the “Salps” [no, this is not an unkind reference to evolutionists!], or one of the Tunicate groups of plankton, was the parent, and which was the child.

“Take the Salps. When the eggs hatch and the young grow up, they are different animals from their parents—so much so, in fact, that they were originally described as a different species. What is more, this second generation does not lay eggs. Instead, it grows a long chain of buds, which finallybreak off to grow up into the egg-laying generation again.

“The situation is about the same as if a greyhound had puppies which turned out to be dachshunds, and these dachshunds grew extremely long tails which broke off and grew into greyhounds. Absurd as it sounds, this is what happens, and which are we to call the parent of which? (National Geographic, July 1952, Hilary B. Moore, pp. 54, 55, emphasis mine).

Yes, evolutionists continually encounter dizzying problems, unfathomable conundrums, amazing puzzles, and dumbfounding anomalies. But, undaunted, they continue to espouse their “no God” theories, and have succeeded in saturating all education and studies of nature with them.

How do evolutionists EXPLAIN the amazing Salps? Which came first, are we to suppose? The eggs? The long chain of buds? The second “egg-laying generation”? To suppose such questions and thousands like them were answered long ago in a courtroom trial known as the “Scopes Trial,” and that evolutionists have the remotest evidence for their mindless theory is to believe that dachshunds’ tails do indeed break off, and become greyhounds! It is to believe that explosions in print shops create one-hundred volume encyclopedias; that fine Swiss watches spontaneously generate from cattle offal; that your mind came from “green slime,” or “polka-dotted air bubbles in the sea!”

If evolutionists had not become so deeply entrenched in this world’s educational systems, they would be like carnival side-show barkers; like the snake medicine shamans of the American West.

Why Do Great Blue Whales Feed On Tiny Microorganisms?

A mind-boggling question for evolutionists is how, when, and why the largest creatures known to man, the great blue whales, together with all other “baleen” whales, like the right whale, humpback, Pacific grey, finback, sei, pygmy right, and bowhead whales began eating krill, instead of large fish!

Consider the great blue whale. Attaining a length of one third that of a football field, or about 100 feet, it weighs 150 tons, and is much, much larger than the largest dinosaurs or the largest elephants. Yet, it has no teeth! Instead, horny plates, festooned with curtain-like fringes of bristles, called “baleen,” hang down from two rows on the whale’s upper jaw. With these bristles, the huge monster swims through clouds of krill, which is a catch-all name for the tiny fish, crustacea and jellyfish or squid that feed on plankton. The whale swims with its mouth open, then, having collected hundreds of krill on its bristly baleen, it presses its tongue against its upper jaw, forcing out the sea water, leaving the krill to be swallowed.

The great blue whale must consume from one half to one and one half tons of krill every day! A new baby great blue whale will weigh about three tons, and be about twenty three feet in length. Its mother must devour tons of food to feed the calf hundreds of pounds of milk each day!

Why? Isn’t it a logical, obvious supposition that this largest of all mammals would eat other fish—and the very largest fish, at that? Sperm whales, attaining a length of 65 feet and weighing 60 tons, do just that! So do all the “toothed whales,” including the killer whale, giant bottle-nosed whales, and the Narwhal, the famed “unicorn of the sea.”

Major problem for evolutionists! All whales are mammals, after all. They are warm-blooded, air- breathing mammals, which bear their young alive! They inhabit common regions of our oceans! Since evolution demands that some basic, natural “force,” such as the “survival of the fittest” must be the precursor of all evolutionary change and adaptation, how is it that many kinds of whales feed on fish, seals, and other whales, while the great blues and several others of the largest whales feed on krill?

The only reason for the great blues to feed on krill would be that they had to do so in order to survive! But WHY? Where was the need? Were not all the other toothed whales swimming along, feeding on the hundreds of species of fish? Had all the fish suddenly disappeared?

Impossible! Why? Because the fish had to have a food source, such as copepods and plankton! Larger fish had to have a food source, such as anchovies, alewives, cigar minnows, smelt, sardines, crustacea, squid, and jellyfish! And all the large fish provided food for even larger fish, such as all the varieties of tuna, marlin, sailfish, wahoo, barracuda, mackerel, and bonito.

Let me pause to illustrate this vitally important point! Many times, I have seen woodpeckers here in East Texas swoop down onto the ground, and eat bugs and insects! I have witnessed the beautiful red-headed woodpeckers snatching up grasshoppers within only a few yards of where I was standing. Do you get the point? In other words, the woodpeckers never had the need to develop those special “ice-tong” kind of toes with which to grip the bark; never had the need to develop their long, barbed tongue with which to snake into the holes they peck in tough old oaks and hickories to extract grubs; never had to develop their special hearing to detect the grubs beneath the bark; never had to develop their special jack-hammer neck and head muscles so they didn’t break their beaks and sprain their necks every time they tried to bang a hole in an oak tree! They could have remained ground feeders all the time! So it is that there was never a need for the baleen whales to develop their unique skirt-like filter systems!

To suppose the blue whales evolved baleen so they could filter out the smallest creatures in the sea, when the whales are the largest, simply does not make sense. There is a delicate, wondrous balance in our ecosystem; a balance in the sea. That the whales are there to contribute to this balance should be obvious to anyone.

Why wouldn’t a huge creature like a great blue whale simply swim right on through a hundred acres of krill, looking for a big fish to eat? After all, killer whales do. They ignore krill and plankton. Their teeth are not suited for filtering, and they would burn up entirely too much energy chasing about after tiny, nearly microscopic morsels, when they can gulp down a big seal!

Think about it. The very first time a great blue whale got it into its head that it wanted to begin eating krill, it needed the baleen to catch it. Therefore, it could not eat krill until it had the baleen. But if it had only rudimentary teeth, or even no teeth at all, it could still have survived nicely, by gulping down dolphins, sharks, and seals.

If it was “surviving” with some other method of food-getting instead of baleen, then it didn’t need the baleen.

If a great blue needed to eat krill in order to survive, but didn’t have baleen, then it starved to death, and there aren’t any great blue whales, or other baleen whales today.

But there are.

Therefore, the very first time in history that a baleen whale began catching krill, it had to be successful! By the same token, the very first time a toothed whale attempted to catch and eat food, it had to be successful!

It is obvious to any logical, thinking person, that such incredibly complex, perfectly designed creatures as great blue whales were the product of a Great Designer, and not the end result of eons and eons of ” evolution” and “survival of the fittest.”

God’s Word says, “And God [Elohim] said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life… and God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth…” (Genesis 1:20, 21).

No living thing lives or dies unto itself. Diatoms and plants produce oxygen. Animals and whales breathe oxygen, and give off carbon dioxide. Plants must have carbon dioxide in order to live, just as animals and man must have oxygen.

Which came first? Carbon dioxide, or oxygen? Plants, or animals and man? How marvelous that this process; this interchange between plants and animals, maintains a very stable supply of both carbon dioxide and oxygen!

In the sea, tiny diatoms, producing oxygen, are food for copepods. Copepods may eat 120,000 diatoms each day. Herring eat copepods. Herring may eat 60,000 copepods each day. Various kinds of plankton (and there are myriad forms), breeding, eating, swimming, migrating, reproducing, form food for many kinds of crustacea and fish. It requires about 1,000 pounds of krill to produce 100 pounds of fish. A seal may gain 10 pounds by eating 100 pounds of fish. A killer whale may gain one pound by eating 10 pounds of seals. Thus, killer whales, and man, stand at the very pinnacle of the incredibly complex, interdependent web of life in the sea—the so-called “food chain.”

An anomaly in all this is the great blue whale. While it may require 10,000 pounds of plankton to cause a killer whale to gain only one pound, the great blue whale can gain one pound from only 100 pounds of krill.

A man, at the top of the food chain, requires that the sea produce five tons of living organisms to provide the man with one pound of weight gain. But the great blue whale feeds at the bottom of the food chain; feeding on krill! Why?

Life in the seas, as on land, exists in a continuous cycle. Each form of life contributes in some way to the survival of all other forms. Each fits its own niche in an amazingly complex, interdependent, symbiotic web of life, from tiny, microscopic life to huge whales!

Therefore, the entire food chain, including the interaction between animals and plants involving oxygen and carbon dioxide, had to come into existence at the same time!

The Weird Tale Of Woeful Willy, The Whale

Somewhere, somehow, according to evolutionists, in the very remote, distant, far reaches of time—no, back, back, back—much further back than that—there was the driving force present in nature to “cause” the baleen whales, such as the great blue whale, earth’s largest creature, to begin to develop those huge skirt-like appendages hanging down from their mouths, so they could filter out all that krill. At least, this is what evolutionists would like to have us believe. It is not true, of course, but millions of unsuspecting students have been taught “evolution” from their earliest years in school.

Obviously, since these “protowhales” must have had some kind of teeth previously, and since their food source must have been threatened, or disappearing, there was some very gradual, subtle “need” for them to ingest krill, which feeds on plankton, instead of attacking schools of tuna, salmon, or cod!

Had all the tuna, salmon and cod disappeared? No, of course not. For, if they had, then we would not be eating tuna, salmon, and cod today, and nations would not be squabbling over long liners, commercial fishermen, purse seiners, and native Indian rights!

Furthermore, since there are many varieties of toothed whales, such as the giant bottlenose, the “killer” whales, belugas, dolphins and others, who were “surviving” by eating their regular fare of seals, penguins, tuna, snapper, cod, mackerel, and dozens of other varieties, there was never really a “need” for any such huge creatures as great blue wales to develop some method of entrapping krill.

Enter Woeful Willy, the whale. Willy has decided to become the very FIRST great blue whale to swim with his mouth open through those clouds of funny-looking little microscopic creatures which had always gotten into his eyes when he was pursuing a fat hair seal beneath the ice floes in the arctic.

But Woeful Willy has teeth, just like all the other toothed whales all about him! Never mind! In order to cause his teeth to “gradually” shrink, and in order for all that “whale bone” to develop in his huge mouth, together with the myriad little branches called “baleen,” he must begin practicing feeding on krill!

Somehow, he knows he must teach this new desire of his (all the other whales thought he was crazy, to swim right on by a huge school of sockeye salmon, and chase after a bunch of little tiny crustacea!) to his offspring. Offspring? But wait! There is no FEMALE great blue whale yet, and so Woeful Willy has no way to reproduce! Obviously, since whales mate in the same way as all other mammals, the male whale and the female whale had to come into existence at the same time! Reproduction: that life reproduces “after its kind” is another insurmountable problem for evolution!

Shrugging off this insurmountable difficulty, Woeful Willy continues to plunge around in the ocean, huge mouth gaping with its rows of big ivory-colored teeth, trying to swallow millions of gallons of seawater every week, hoping the krill he ingests will gradually cause some baleen to develop in his mouth.

Soon, waterlogged with all that seawater, and with only a few ounces to provide food, Woeful Willy begins to lose hundreds of pounds a day. Soon, he dies of starvation! Therefore, great blue whales do not exist!

But they do! Therefore, Woeful Willy MUST have “gradually” been successful in snaring enough krill to keep him alive, right? Wrong! This would be analogous to we humans suddenly “deciding” we need to become insect catchers to “survive!” With all kinds of foods around us; meats, vegetables, fruits and nuts; a plethora of foods including beef, chicken, fish, root crops, grains, and even fungi, we “decide” we will pass up all this food (like “Woeful Willy” passing up all those salmon, seals, penguins and tuna!), and run about with our mouths open, trying to snag mosquitos, flies, gnats, grasshoppers, moths, and all kinds of flying insects! For years, no, decades, we run about, mouths open, snapping at flies and gnats! We soon fall to the ground in utter exhaustion! We needed to eat FOOD to survive! Instead, here we are, gaping mouths, tottering legs, flailing arms, wild-eyed, trying to snatch insects from the air! Does this cause, over a period of “billions of years” and “countless aeons of time” some funny-looking “baleen” to begin growing in our mouths, replacing our teeth?

Unable to catch a single gnat (how much nutrition IS there in a gnat?), we drop from exhaustion, and die. We keep dying, until there is not a single human left alive! But why not “evolution in REVERSE?” What “law” is there which demands that we abandon our primary food source, and, running right through a field of spinach, underneath peach trees laden with fruit, right through a herd of Angus steers, we keep on stumbling around, trying to catch gnats with our mouths open? Why not, instead, just give up on the gnats and flies when we fall down in a carrot patch, pluck up a nice Nantes carrot, rub off the dirt, and use those gleaming rows of teeth to eat it?

By the way, WHY ARE NOT HEBREW BOYS BORN CIRCUMCISED?

After all, for thousands of years, Jewish boys have been circumcised eight days after birth! One would think there would be at least a HINT that “evolution” is making SOME progress after all that time!

But there goes Woeful Willy, the biggest creature in the seas, swimming right past huge schools of fat tuna, trying to snag little microorganisms; tiny crustacea, “krill,” on his teeth!

All the belugas, killer whales, great bottle-nosed whales, dolphins and pilot whales squeal in derision at Woeful Willy’s antics, watching him charging along, with his mouth open, but NO BALEEN! Obviously, if Willy was to be successful in gradually developing the baleen in his mouth, so he could snag between one and one and a half TONS of krill each day, he HAD TO HAVE THAT BALEEN IN PLACE THE VERY FIRST TIME HE FED ON KRILL!

But this would mean Willy was CREATED, just as God SAYS he was, and not that he “evolved” the ability to strain krill out of seawater!

Think of the kinds of whales there are, and of their unique methods of food-getting, birthing, and survival! Like all mammals, whales are born ALIVE! By what strange inborn instinct does the baby whale “decide” to swim immediately to the surface and take its first breath? When the baby is born, it then swims beneath its mother to nurse. But, unlike other mammals, the mother whale must pump her milk into her baby’s mouth! She has no external “breasts,” or paps. Instead, she has special muscles around her mammary glands which ejects her fat-rich milk into her baby’s mouth!

When was the first baby whale born? Why was it born tail first, when the shape of its body would indicate it would far more efficient to eject the bullet-shaped baby head first? But then, IF it were born head first, it would drown before it could surface to breathe! And when did the first whale PAIR surface?

How did both sexes “evolve” together? Attempting to explain the marvelous and majestic whales of our oceans by “evolution” is utterly ludicrous!

All Life Contributes To All Other Life — a “Web Of Life”

It can be shown, in literally thousands upon thousands of cases, that life cannot exist without the direct aid, contribution, or protection of another form, or many other forms, of life! The examples of symbiosis, or life which is dependent upon other forms of life, are so prodigious they could fill the shelves of a large library with books detailing them.

Consider only a few more, in addition to the whales.

Divers know about the stinging tentacles of a jellyfish called the “Portuguese man o’ war.” This strange creature obtains its food by spreading out transparent-like tentacles into the water surrounding its jelly-like body. When fish swim into the tentacles, they are immediately paralyzed by a powerful poison. Swimmers who encounter them may have angry-looking strings of very painful welts raised where the poison penetrated their skin.

Yet, the little fish called “Nomeus,” swims about amidst the poisonous tentacles, careful to avoid them with its body. Yet, it subsists on a steady diet of man o’ war tentacles, by nipping them off, then storing them in a special pouch behind its mouth which neutralizes the poisonous stinging cells before they pass on into the Nomeus’ stomach! How? When?

The very first time a Nomeus swam about amidst thetentacles; the very first time it nipped off a bite, it had to already somehow know it should not become entangled in them with its body; it had to already possess its pouch for a detoxification chamber; it had to already know it had to process this dangerous food, or it did not survive.

But both of them are here.

Therefore, they both came into being at the same time!

Larger fish, seeing the little Nomeus, attempt to attack it, and become enmeshed within the stinging tentacles. The Nomeus acts like a lure to other fish, thus aiding the man o’ war. The man o’ war gives the Nomeus a steady supply of tentacles, growing new ones as it has need! A nice arrangement.

How did the “man o’ war” know it had to have stinging tentacles? Apply the same logic to the method by which this mindless jellyfish “knew” it needed to sting its prey to death. Confusing, isn’t it? Evolution, I mean.

Prior to developing stinging tentacles, innocent “Portuguese men o’ peace” (so named, because, naturally, they did not yet have any method to sting their prey to death), floated, jerked, wafted and slithered about, hoping for food. But, having no food-getting method; allowing dozens of varieties of fish to not only swim about among their jelly-like tentacles, but having those fish feeding on their tentacles, the very first “Portuguese men o’ peace” quickly disappeared, since they had not yet learned to become “Portuguese men o’ WAR!”

They had no protection. They had no sting in their tentacles. How to ensnare food?

As the non-surviving progeny of the nonexistent jellyfish somehow noticed that they no longer existed they decided they needed to develop a powerful poison, and send it out to their nonexistent tentacles.

Finally, after millions and millions of years of non-survival, they learned to survive! Eureka! Poisonous tentacles!

Such are the fantasies of evolutionists. They dream. They speculate. They fantasize. They postulate. They guess. They hope. They “believe.”

But few of them would admit they are believing, NOT, as the Bible believer does, in the evidence before their eyes about the creation of the universe, the solar system, the earth, and all life upon it, but in guesswork, impossibility, fantasy, dreams, and a dogged determination to REJECT God, and any knowledge of His purpose for human life!

“Clowning Around Amid Poisonous Tentacles”

Another striking example of symbiosis is the colorful species of “clownfish,” named for their garish stripes and colors, and the sea anemone. Sea anemones appear as beautiful, translucent, flowering plants, yet are “animals,” with stinging tentacles, a mouth, and a disgestive system. When small fish swim into contact with the tentacles they are immediately stunned by means of a poison which the anemone manufactures, then slowly worked by the movement of the tentacles toward the mouth, in the center of the plant-like creature. There are dozens of varieties of anemones, and many varieties of clownfish.

Clownfish have chosen for their “homes” the stinging tentacles of sea anemones. They cuddle down inside them, nestling like a baby in its mother’s arms, safe from attack by predators. Strangely, the presence of the clownfish; its constant contact with dozens of the poisonous tentacles, causes no response from the anemone. Each tentacle seems to “sense” that the fish swimming about among the waving arms of the anemone does not represent food. They do not suddenly shrink, or grab the fish, or start moving it toward the mouth.

Each year, tens of thousands of visitors to the coast lands of America’s Pacific Northwest venture out onto the rocks left exposed at low tide. There, they can view hundreds of beautiful green “sea roses,” a kind of sea anemone. I have oftentimes fed the sea roses by breaking open a mussel, extracting its body, and dropping it onto the tentacles of the sea rose. Instantly, in a spasmodic jerk, the tentacles grab the meat, and the sea rose begins to contract, and close around its prey.

I have placed my finger gently against the center of dozens of tiny sea roses. It is much like placing your finger against adhesive tape, for you feel a stickiness, the tiny little barbs on the tentacles, which instantly close, either in a protective movement, or as a means of ensnaring prey.

Anemones can be found at considerable depths, in an amazing variety of sizes, shapes, and incredibly beautiful colors.

Often, one can find clownfish, wriggling, cuddling, nestling deep within the swaying tentacles of the anemone. I shall never forget the beautiful clownfish and the brightly-colored anemones I saw about fifteen feet down on the edge of a reef when I was snorkeling in the Red Sea. How did this happen? Could it have all “evolved”? When did the first clownfish attempt to live within the embrace of deadly poison tentacles? When did the first ancient anemone somehow know the clownfish did not represent food, but, instead, a food source?

You see, laboratory experiments have proved that a clownfish will gather far more food than it needs, like a farmer harvesting a crop, and deposit it within the tentacles of the anemone! We fed frozen shrimp to clownfish in a saltwater tank. They ascended to the surface from their home among the stinging tentacles of the anemone, grabbed the shrimp, and returned to the anemone, depositing it on the tentacles of their host. The other fish in the tank gobbled up the shrimp instantly, feeding in a frenzy. Not the clownfish. Only after they made repeated trips, and seemed satisfied that there was more than enough food for both the fish and the anemone did the fish begin leisurely eating its meal!

Why? When? How did all this begin? Dare we apply LOGIC to the ridiculous theories of evolution?

Let your imagination go back, back, into the distant reaches of the past when the very first clownfish had “evolved.” It swam up to the very first anemone, and, stupidly, decided to cuddle down inside its stinging tentacles to hide from a passing grouper. Zap! The clownfish stiffened in shock, completely immobilized by a powerful poison! The sticky, barbed-like tentacles began slowly moving the dying clownfish toward the mouth of the anemone, where it slowly disappeared, being digested by the plant-like creature.

So the first clownfish to ever attempt living in a poisonous environment died. So there are no surviving clownfish today. With their brilliant colors, striped cheekpieces, comparitive slow speed and playful antics, they were easy prey for barracuda, groupers, sea bass, ling cod, sharks, calico bass, and snappers. So why didn’t they simply “evolve” camouflage, like so many other fish, and disappear into the sand? Instead, they attempted to cuddle down into poisonous tentacles!

When, how, did the first anemone develop poison? How did the first anemone feeling a little fish (anemones have no eyes) suddenly come in contact with its tentacles say to itself, “This fish will probably go and get me some food—better let it alone, and see what happens?”

Evolutionists have no answer for symbiosis; one creature living in perfect cooperation with another, and each of them interdependent! Like the fantastic web of life in the sea, a vast food chain of interdependency, the web of life on land operates in the same way. Nothing lives or dies to itself. Each plays a part in a gigantic, intricate, incredibly complex living organism. Bees pollinate the flowering trees, grasses, shrubs and plants as they gather nectar to produce honey. Bears, other animals and man, as well as the bees themselves, feed on the honey. The plants are pollinated, so they can reproduce. Animals and man eat the plants. Animals and men give off carbon dioxide. The plants synthesize it, producing oxygen. Men and animals breathe oxygen. A nice arrangement. Which came first, the bees, or the flowering plants?

You live in an age which unlike any other age in all history, possesses the tools of investigation, experimentation, magnification; the tools of science, which should be THRILLING the average layman with the marvels of God’s great creation on a daily basis!

Instead, what do you find?

You find that every television documentary about the marvels of animals and fish is saturated with evolution. The unanswerable questions asked in this brochure are never addressed.

The faith of evolutionists is marvelous to behold. A faith in vain, empty theory, not a faith based upon fact.

God says you can PROVE His existence “by the things which are made”—by looking at His creation (Romans 1:20). If you look past the mindless statements of evolutionists, you can see the proofs of God in every single wildlife documentary you have ever watched!

God’s marvelous creation is breathtaking PROOF of His existence!

God is CREATOR. He is Lifegiver, Designer, Sustainer, and the RULER over all His creation. Soon, now, and His Son and our Savior, our soon-coming King of Kings, Jesus Christ, will rend the heavens and descend to this earth! At that moment, there will not be a single evolutionist, anywhere! All men will come to know God!

You may copy and distribute this information only to friends and family without changes, without charge and with full credit given to the author and publisher. You may not publish it for general audiences.

This publication is intended to be used as a personal study tool. Please know it is not wise to take any man’s word for anything, so prove all things for yourself from the pages of your own Bible.

The activities of the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association are paid for by tithes, offerings and donations freely given by Christians and co-workers who are dedicated to preaching the gospel according to Jesus Christ.

The post EVOLUTION… A WHALE of a Tale! first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

There are literally thousands of proofs that a Creator God exists. The Bible says we can know much about our Creator by looking at the things He has made! Paul wrote, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them [EVIDENT to them; plain to see, right before their eyes!] ; forGod hath showed it unto them.

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world [by looking at the creation itself] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:18-21).

We know a house had an architect and a builder. We know an automobile had a manufacturer. We know a child had parents. We know a watch had a maker. We know that an airplane was designed by aeronautical engineers, and that crystals form the same way every time, according to their properties. We know that mosquitoes hatch from larvae, which were laid by adult mosquitoes, which were hatched from larvae, just as we know chickens were hatched from eggs, which were laid by adult hens, which were hatched from eggs. We know that all life exists in a cycle, and that life comes only from pre-existing life. Further, life comes only from pre-existing life of the same kind.

These are ABSOLUTES. They are inexorable, immutable, unchanging. How utterly stupid it is to IGNORE the absolute; the positive, unchanging laws which regulate all life forms, and rely instead on fanciful theories which have no basis in fact.

Up front, it is important to remember, however, that there IS such a thing as “micro evolution,” or, in other words, almost limitless variety within a Genesis kind; almost limitless adaptation. Hundreds of examples are instantly evident; moths which adapt to their environment, becoming virtually invisible as they take on the texture and color of plants and trees so as to conceal themselves from predators; the many hundreds of breeds of dogs (resulting, in the main, from man’s selective breeding); the incredible variety within the human race, from pygmies in the Ituri Forest in Africa to a Swede who is 8 feet tall; from tiny Shetlands and miniature horses to the huge Percheron and Clydesdale; the myriad number of kinds of hummingbirds.

Evolutionists are fond of pointing to “MICRO-evolution,” meaning the many VARIETIES within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved from a different kind! This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. Whether a snowshoe rabbit is white in the winter or brown in the summer, it is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in the process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey. Whether a chameleon which is green on a green leaf, and brown on a brown leaf, it is still a chameleon, and will give birth to other chameleons, not to a different species. Actually, the very fact of such marvelous adaptation, such as the camouflage of certain birds, insects, animals and fish, is another PROOF OF GOD; a proof of His intricate DESIGN placed within a myriad of His creatures.

All around us are proofs of God. The closer we look into the marvels of what men refer to as “Mother Nature” (interesting they refuse to call it “Father”), the more awesome, the more law-abiding, the more intricate, the more perfectly designed is everything we see.

We know much about the Creator by looking at His CREATION. Creation means all that IS; all that exists. That means the entire universe; all the stars and their planetary systems; all laws, all energy.

We know that matter is energy arranged in intricate, law-abiding ways. Matter is anything that has weight, and occupies space. Even air is “matter.” Where did it come from? What was before it?

Obviously, a study of only a part of creation would require enough books to fill a very large library. Every conceivable physical science would be involved: astronomy, biology, geology and all their divisions such as historical and dynamic geology, microbiology and genetics—a vast field of special disciplines involving every aspect of the material universe would be involved in such a study. You should do yourself a favor, and, limiting your study to only ONE subject of the myriad number available, go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane and every day, taken-for-granted things such as “air,” or “water,” or “light.” I promise you, you will be fascinated!

“Terra Firma,” The Rocks Beneath Our Feet

Nothing is more immediately obvious, when thinking of “the creation,” than the rocks beneath our feet. To illustrate only a few of these thousands of challenges to the vain theory of evolution, let’s investigate the so-called “geologic succession of strata.” This phrase suggests there is an orderly succession in the rocks of our earth; that the most ancient rocks are always on the “bottom,” (an inaccurate and wholly irrelevant term), and that the younger rocks, containing much more “recent” forms of fossil life, are always on top.

Are the oldest rocks always on the bottom?

No! They most definitely are NOT! However, there is a caution here, as you will see later. The very terms “older” and “younger” are applied, NOT because of the order of the rocks; the depth at which they are found, or which layer is atop another, but because of the kind of fossil life forms found within the rocks! As you will see, this is reasoning in a circle, and not true science at all. Evolutionary geology is built around the presupposition that our earth consists of layers of rock found in succession as they were deposited over aeons of time; that the very oldest rocks, containing no fossils, are at the bottom; that the “Archeozoic” and “Protorozoic” (“before life”) rocks contain no fossil remains; that the early “Paleozoic” rocks contain only “simple” life forms; that “Mesozoic” rocks contain ever more complex life forms until one arrives at the most “recent” strata, such as the ice ages (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Recent), where one finds mammoths and man.

Further, evolutionary hypotheses are based upon the supposition that all these rocks were laid down over vast aeonsof time; that the fossil record shows the passage of billions of years; that the fossils in the rocks were not laid down suddenly, as a result of great catastrophes, like a world-wide flood! Yet, the Bible not only asserts that the flood of Noah was global, but allows, in the first verses of Genesis, for any number of submergences of the continental land masses beneath the waters of the seas. Any geologist knows that fossil sea shells are found atop the highest mountains on earth; from the Rockies to the Himalayas.

Evolutionists are fond of arranging the fossils as they are allegedly found in the rocks in museums, and in illustrations in textbooks. Yet, most laymen have assumed that only the deepest, most “ancient,” strata contain these “primitive” fossil forms. This, in spite of the fact that fossil dinosaurs are found   on or near the surface in places from China to Colorado.Evolutionists established a theory long ago, and have built an incredibly warped, shaky, unstable superstructure atop it. They date the strata by the fossils found in them, and then date the fossils by the supposed age of the strata.

As one collegiate-grade text asserts, “All fossil evidence has some significance in determining the geologic time of deposition of strata. Thus in the case of man the correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals is the chief reliance in dating stone age man with regard to the various glacial and interglacial stages of that epoch.

“Again, any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic; those with vertebrate remains must be later than Ordovician, and trilobite fossils mean Paleozoic time” (Geology, by von Engeln and Caster, p. 435, emphasis mine). Talk about dogma. Note that well. “Any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic.” While this is simply not so, it sounds like a pronouncement issued by an individual that claims infallibility. A kind of evolutionary pope, speaking from the holy see of erudition and anti-God evolution, issuing an infallible edict which all are required to accept.

There are insurmountable difficulties with the so-called “Geologic Succession of Strata.” Let’s take a look at some of them.

The “Geologic Succession Of Strata” Is False!

First, there is no place on earth where the entire geologic succession of strata can be found. Obviously, the concept of the earth’s sedimentary rocks being found in orderly form, from most ancient to most recent is impossible to begin with. Where did the rocks come from? Rocks are either sedimentary (water deposited), metamorphic (formed by changes caused by faulting, pressure, and so-on) or igneous (volcanic). Since there are no fossils in igneous rocks, and since there are virtually no fossils in metamorphic rocks, scientists are limited to investigating the water-borne deposits, such as various kinds of marbles, sandstone, limestone and shale, to establish an age for the strata.

The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them. The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is. As we shall see, evolutionary geology immediately discards data; facts — evidence in the amount of billions of tons of rock; whole mountain ranges, mammoth regions of the earth, where the fossils found in the rocks contradict their theories.

True science always alters a given theory to admit proven facts. Not so with evolution. To illustrate this point, let’s get right to one of the most poignant, and embarrassing, proofs. An important one is the ridiculous attempt by geologists to claim that whenever the fossils are “out of order” according to their “geologic succession of strata,” there is something wrong with the ROCKS! Perhaps, they say in many cases, the rocks are UPSIDE DOWN!

When you walk into your bedroom and see the bed made, you probably suppose your wife spread the sheet on the bed prior to the cover, and the cover prior to the bedspread. She would look a little silly putting the bedspread on first, and then burrowing beneath it, attempting to spread the sheet. If she had done so, out of caprice, there would probably be evidence pointing to the fact, for it would be virtually impossible to do a neat job unless she once again straightened the bedspread.

When you view layers of rock, as exposed in highway cuts, canyons (like the Grand Canyon of Arizona) and river banks, and you see massive layers, sometimes twenty, thirty feet thick, seemingly as smooth and cohesive as if they had been mixed in a blender, lying conformably atop each other in orderly succession, it is logical to assume the layers on the bottom (if no evidence of faulting, such as tilted, folded, or fractured strata: isoclines, synclines, etc., is present) were deposited first; then the ones immediately above them, and, lastly, the layer on the top.

You would be quite correct, of course. However, evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so-called “younger” strata are often found BENEATH so-called “older” strata. When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, in many regions, including large areas of significant mountain ranges, they seek to explain away arrangement of millions of tons of rocks miles upon miles of rocks, where the fossils are out of proper order; sometimes “upside down.” Not that they are really “upside down,” please note, but that it appears “older” fossils are found in rocks above “younger” fossils, when these “older” fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed! Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down; are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, overthrusts, or any other activity. What a headache! What a problem for evolutionists! If they ADMIT what their eyes plainly tell them, they would be admitting their entire scheme of the “geologic succession of strata” is WRONG; admitting that the supposed younger fossils DID NOT EVOLVE from supposed older, simpler ones!

But such an admission would be DISASTROUS to evolutionists!

Presto! Forget the evidence. Claim the rocks are “upside down!” Those rocks just have no right to be sitting there, mute, weighing billions of tons, in a ridiculous posture, containing the wrong kind of fossils! Like many a clever defense attorney, just because the defendant is standing there, holding the gun, with the smoke still issuing forth, doesn’t mean he was the one who pulled the trigger!

What kind of force would be required to superimpose massive layers of rock, weighing millions of tons, atop other layers? Why, the kind of forces which caused mountain-building;overthrusts, isoclines, synclines and geosynclines. When one sees twisted, tilted, and folded strata, which is clearly visible throughout the Swiss Alps, many other major mountain ranges, and in highway cuts in Southern California, one is seeing evidence of massive earthquakes on a scale never experienced in the history of mankind. Whenever a “younger” layer of rock is allegedly found beneath an “older” layer of rock, there is inescapable physical evidence which demonstrates how such an unusual phenomenon could have occurred. And, to be sure, there ARE cases where such things can and do occur. Such vast movement of massive regions of land would cause grinding, crushing destruction of the rocks closest to the moving layers, reforming them into “metamorphic” rocks, destroying most fossils. Certainly, there could not have survived such delicate fossil forms as worm tracks, ferns and leafs, ripple marks, and the like. Even a layman could look at two layers of rock, and determine if “slickensides,” the polished rocks formed at the place where faulting and slippage of the rocks occurred, is present. But what if the layer of rock (stratum) containing the so-called “older” fossils, and the stratum containing the so-called “younger” fossils beneath it show absolutely no evidence of any twisting, faulting, or movement? What if there is perfect conformity between them?

Obviously, they were deposited just as you view them. Therefore, the assertion that the fossils below other fossils are younger than the fossils atop them–perhaps by countless millions of years–is simply false. Though evolutionists may claim they are somehow “out of order,” or that we are viewing “deceptive conformity,” we are actually seeing the fossils in their respective layers of rock reposing in the exact order in which they were deposited.

You and I know that when mud is deposited by flooding, then gradually hardens, it begins to crack. Then, it erodes. Animals walk about upon it. Wind blows. Summer storms come along. In other words, any deposits of alluvial soil, slowly drying as the water which carried it there recedes, will show obvious evidence of the passage of time. Especially when that time is assumed to be measured in the millions or even billions of years!

When any two layers containing so-called “upside down” fossils record are lying perfectly, smoothly, uninterruptedly together, as if the tide of mud which had deposited the bottom layer had no sooner receded when another flow of different mud, containing different forms of life, came from another direction and was deposited immediately, it is obvious that the evolutionists have made a serious error in their dating theories. The rocks are not in error. Evolutionists are. When one cannot even slip a thin knife between two smoothly-mixed layers of sandstone; when there is absolutely no evidence of any erosion, or over thrust faulting (which would crush the rock, grind it, metamorphose it, and cause a completely different kind of rock structure), then one must assume the rocks were deposited exactly as they appear — the older on the bottom, and the younger on the top, like your sheet and bedspread.

Of course, what you are looking at when you see such strata piled atop each other so uniformly is in itself evidence of a massive catastrophe; floods on unimaginable scale which held vast amounts of silts and muds in dissolution, and which came flowing over the recently-deposited mud of a previous tide. That huge amounts of the rocks in the earth’s surface were deposited suddenly is anathema to evolutionists, for they detest the word “catastrophism,” a word which means much of the geologic formations on the earth were the result of gigantic catastrophes, such as huge floods, giant earthquakes, and the unimaginable movement of the tectonic plates.

Evolutionists simply will not admit that different layers of strata, containing vastly different species, could have lived contemporaneously. Once having insisted that their supposed “geologic succession of strata” is correct, they stolidly refuse to alter the theory to suit the facts.

“Rock Bottom” — Where Is It? Which Layer Is “On The Bottom?”

Which stratum is the oldest of all fossil-bearing rock, and therefore (according to evolution) contains the “earliest” and “simplest” of all life forms? Long ago, evolutionary theory accepted as fact that primitive, simple life forms are invariably found at the “bottom” of the layers of rocks; that, as one progresses through layer after layer toward the “top,” the life forms become ever more complex. This is a given. Virtually every high school graduate who has been introduced to only a little sample of geology, or history, or biology, has been told repeatedly that this is so. But it is not so.

Long ago, evolutionists used the order of fossils found in a few regions in Western Europe and New York state to establish their evolutionary column. They have assumed that fossil forms of ancient life are invariably found in the same order all over the world. Such is not the case. In fact, evolutionary geologists have not yet determined, with any degree of certainty, which layer of rock is the “bottom” insofar as the fossil record is concerned.

As one eminent geologist says, “For any given limited locality, where stratigraphy can be followed out, the lowest beds are certainly the oldest. But we can make no progress by such a method when we come to deal with the world at large, for actual stratigraphical relationships can be proved over only very limited areas.

“These beds may be the lowest in this locality, may rest on the granite or crystalline schists, and have every appearance of antiquity. But other beds containing very different fossils, are in precisely this position elsewhere, and where stratigraphicalorder can no more prove the relative age of their fossils than the overlap of scales on a fish proves those at the tail to be older than those at the head” (Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by Price: p. 78, emphasis mine).

Price goes on to show how “…any kind of fossiliferous rock whatever, even `young’ Tertiary rocks, may rest upon the Archaean or Azoic series, or may themselves be almost wholly metamorphosed or crystalline, thus resembling in position and outward appearance the so-called `oldest’ rocks” (ibid. p. 79).

In his chapter on “finding bottom,” Price concludes, “…I see no escape from the acknowledgment that the doctrine of any particular fossils’ being essentially older than others is a pure invention, with absolutely nothing in nature to support it” (ibid. p. 87).

Evolutionary geology operates on a false assumption that the layers of rock on the earth are invariably found in the same order, like the layers of an onion. Obviously the whole world is not like an onion, with the oldest rocks on the bottom, progressing upward until arriving at the most “recent” rocks, for the earth is round, after all, and each layer of sedimentary rock was water borne, and had to come from some other area, where the materials the water carried were scoured by massive floods; tides, rivers, and so-on. Logically, the area so scoured is now absent the exact amount of materials which were deposited elsewhere.

Bottom, or the lowest rocks next to the liquid magma upon which the tectonic plates “float” is naturally where there are no fossils in evidence, according to evolutionary theory. Bottom means, usually, “bedrock” of granite and various schists; metamorphic rock, atop which one finds sedimentary rock, containing various fossil forms. But, as Price proves, “Since the life-succession theory [evolution] rests logically and historically on the biological form of Werner’s onion-coat notion that only certain kinds of rocks (fossils) are to be found at the `bottom,’ or next to the Archaean, or Primitive, and it is now acknowledged everywhere that any kind of rocks whatevermay be thus situated [including Tertiary rocks, containing fossils of mammoths and men!], it is as clear as sunlight that the life-succession theory rests logically and historically on a myth, and that there is no way of proving what kind of fossil was buried first“(ibid. p. 87).

In spite of such overwhelming evidence, evolutionists cling to their false theory. Students who intend entering the teaching field in the subjects of anthropology or paleontology are not taught from books such as those by Nelson, Price, Whitcomb and Morris, and a host of others. They are never told about such books, which are dismissed by evolutionary geologists; completely ignored.

Yet, there are many studious works which completely dismantlethe evolutionary theory. Outstanding examples are Darwin On Trial, by Phillip E. Johnson, published by Regnery

Gateway, Washington, D.C., and Evolution—Possible or Impossible? by James F. Coppedge, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and The Bone Peddlers—Selling Evolution, by William R. Fix, published by Macmillan.

Price conclusively shows, most of the rocks of our earth prove great catastrophes occurred in the past; and most of the sedimentary rocks, including miles and miles of coal beds show very recent “catastrophes,” such as massive floods. Since God’s word speaks of a global flood, and the rocks cry out in a great roaring voice that “A FLOOD DID THIS,” only a fool would ignore the obvious message of the rocks. It requires on the average about a forty foot thick layer of vegetation, ripped up, and water borne to then be crushed beneath subsequent layers of muds to form a seam of coal only one foot thick. Coal beds prove gargantuan catastrophes in the past, as do many, many other strata, such as marbles, which are sometimes formed from solid masses of sea bottom life.

All such evidence completely destroys the theory that it required vast aeons of time for various forms of life to “evolve” into other, remarkably different forms of life; that men eventually evolved from “simple, one-celled animals” like amoeba.

To assume that our continents and islands; the massive mountain ranges of our earth, and all topographical features of the land are the result of “uniformity”; that we are viewing the results of a very slow, gradual process which required billions of years is sheer nonsense.

Our present river systems and deltas portray only a very recent development. In the North American continent are hundreds of dry lake beds, vast areas where ancient inland sea shores are clear by visible. The Great Salt Lake is but a tiny puddle remaining from massive “Lake Bonneville,” which was a huge inland sea at one time. The Mississippi River is but a tiny trickle when compared with the monstrous drainage basin that once surged toward the South, carrying untold amounts of silts and sediments that were deposited across many states. When the North American continent was thrust upward from the seas which covered it, the buckling of the tectonic plates beneath caused the massive mountain building that is evident by looking at the great Rocky Mountains; the Cascades, and the Sierra Madre mountains. In the river valleys one discovers deep layers of sedimentary rocks. Along the spines of the mountains, one sees the ancient granites and schists; up thrusts of “bedrock” that soar as high as 14,000 feet.

Here and there, at incredibly high elevations, one discovers fossils which could only have existed in the seas; fossils preserved, not through the process of gradual change, but uprooted, sorted by alluvial action, and deposited by the millions, suddenly.

The vast San Juaquin Valley of California was once a gigantic bay, teeming with sea life. At its southern end, around Bakersfield, are supposedly some of the “oldest” mountains found on the North American continent. Why the so-called oldest? Because paleontologists have found fossilized sharks there, and, since the kinds of sharks found “belong” to a certain stratum found elsewhere, and therefore must be of a certain “age,” that same age is assigned to the hills around Bakersfield.

Among these rolling, yet steep and gravely hills is “Shark Tooth Mountain.” Actually, it is not just one mountain, but a number of ridges and ravines; smaller hills, which contain countless hundreds of thousands of shark’s teeth and bones.

Many years ago, it proved one of the most exciting “classes” of the year when I would arrange a field trip for my college students to go to “Shark Tooth Mountain.” We would take wire mesh baskets with wooden frames, into which we would shovel the gravely soil. By shaking the loose soil rapidly, like a winnowing process, the dirt and smaller pieces would fall through the mesh, and, with surprising regularity, we would discover shark’s teeth of various sizes.

Our field trips proved to us that, at some time perhaps many thousands of years ago, a vast inland basin, or bay, had existed in central California, of which San Francisco Bay is but a tiny remnant. Further, that this shallow inland basin, or sea, contained countless fish and sharks. Further, that some great catastrophe had suddenly killed all that sea life. Further, that, due to the sorting action of water, and massive tides flowing this way and that as the former inland sea drained, the decaying bodies of millions of fish and sharks were mangled and torn; that there were so many of them, that hundreds of thousands of teeth were deposited in one small region. A study of specific gravity; the density of various bodies in water and how they are “sorted” by fluvial action is all that is necessary to understand the process.

“Reading” the rocks by noting the kinds of fossil forms found within them; the shape and texture of the rocks; the accompanying rocks above, below, and all around them, is not difficult. These rounded, yet steep hills had obviously been deposited by massive tides and waves which had sluiced back and forth for many years, as what had once been a salt water basin was being raised above the level of the Pacific, and the millions of creatures which lived in it were trapped, died, were torn apart; their remains being “sorted” so that they were deposited as we found them.

Most of the students were able to find shark’s teeth, and many of them were lying at, or very near the surface. I picked up several, including some fairly large ones.

The entire journey was a fascinating study in paleontology and geology, for in the highway cuts between the mountains, we could see plain evidence of massive faulting, folding, twistingof the strata. Of course, we drove right through the famous “San Andreas” fault, where mind-boggling earthquakes have occurred in the past.

Perhaps those who live on the plains, or in farming states like Iowa or Illinois, are not quite so aware of how great catastrophes formed and shaped our continent. Yet, they have only to look at the rich black soil of Iowa, note its depth, determine which kinds of rocks lie beneath it, and so on, to appreciate how America’s richest soil was formed by the fluvial action of water, many thousands of years ago. It is ludicrous to assume, for example, that the Grand Canyon of Arizona is the result of the slow, gradual scouring action of today’s Colorado River! One only has to journey downstream for a few hundred miles, to the dams along the Colorado River system along the border with California, to see “conglomerates” and other sedimentary deposits which show immediate evidence of massive river flows in the past.

When you see huge stones, as large as automobiles, lying mixed among rocks of every conceivable size and shape, as well as gravels and sand–when those rocks, no matter how large, or how small, are rounded; many of them smoothed off, so as to have very few jagged edges, it means they were rolled and tumbled along for many, many miles together.

The operative word is “together.” It requires massive flows of water to tumble rocks that are as large as a house! Only by river flows that are hundreds of times larger than the present flow of the Colorado could those rocks have been deposited together, obviously at the same time.

Evolutionists may not like the word “catastrophe” being applied to geology and paleontology, but it is the only word applicable when one looks at the plain chapter and verse of the rocks themselves. Only a casual study of the Grand Canyon tells us of at least two of the most massive floods imaginable: the first, when the huge layers of sedimentary rock were deposited all over the southwest–layers which lie smoothly mixed, perfectly conformable to each other, for many, many miles. The second, when those water-deposited layers were scoured to the depth of one mile, carving out the most awesome, massive canyon on earth, and depositing billions of tons of rock in jumbled profusion for hundreds of miles.

“Uniform” flows of the Colorado did not deposit the gigantic layers of sandstone, many of them 60 to 80 feet thick, mixed as smoothly as if in a giant blender, which are visible along the rim of the Grand Canyon. Neither did “uniform” flow of the river, even including seasonal variations due to flooding,accomplish the scouring of the entire Grand Canyon.

Your eyes and the camera which can record such awesome sights, and which does not lie, tell you, “this was a massive catastrophe” at some ancient time in the past, not the result of gradual processes; not the result of the deposition of sands and silts along a single river bank.

Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by George M. Price (Pacific Press) is a book I highly recommend to serious students of the question of whether evolution is true, or whether God exists. It is replete with examples from all over the world like that mentioned above; geologic evidence of “catastrophes,” which occurred suddenly which are simply irrefutable. Unfortunately, it may be out of print, although it might be possible for one of the large Internet book sellers to find a copy, or it might be found in a used book store.

All of the facts you have read prove overwhelmingly that there simply IS no proof found in the rocks of our earth that simple one-celled animals “evolved” into sponges, fish, mammals, horses, apes, and man!

Instead, the rocks cry out that gigantic catastrophes, such as the flood of Noah, and many huge floods long prior to the time of Adam, buried billions of creatures, which remain as fossils. The burial of ancient pre-Adamic life has meant that man has been provided with “fossil fuel” in the form of billions of tons of coal and crude oil. All of this is proof of huge catastrophes, not of a gradual deposition of strata much as we see it today.

The proofs of God are myriad. There are SEVEN basic proofs of the existence of God, and each of the seven deserves hundreds of encyclopedic books to illustrate. Briefly, they are, (1) Creation itself — the very existence of matter—demands a Creator. (2) Law; immutable, unchangeable, inexorable law, demands a Lawgiver. (3) Design; intricate, interdependent, as in the case of symbiosis, demands a Designer. (4) Life, in all its breathtaking forms, from the micro-bacteria to great blue whales, demands a Lifegiver, since life comes only from preexisting life, and preexisting life of the same kind. (5) The operation of all the forces and powers which regulate our earth, such as gravity and inertia, and all the physical laws of science, such as the formation of crystals, the cleavage properties of minerals, etc., demand a great Sustaining Force; a Sustainer. (6) The many fulfilled prophecies of the Bible, notably those of the great city states and empires of the past, such as found in Daniel’s prophecies in Daniel 2, 4, 7 and 11, together with dozens of others in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and many other prophets, absolutely prove the existence of God, who is able to interfere in human affairs to bring about His purpose. (7) Answered prayer, sometimes in the form of miraculous healings of deadly disease, prove there is a God who hears, and answers prayer.

Remember, your watch had a maker. Your automobile had a designer and a manufacturer. You had parents, who had parents, who had parents. The footsteps of mankind lead away from the Middle East, not from the Olduvai Gorge in Africa. The spade of the archaeologist always confirms the biblical account, never disputes it. Every time you take a breath of air, and with every beat of your heart, you experience a proof of God.

It is only an “educated fool” who denies what his own eyes and common sense tell him.

“Only The Fool…”

It is only the “fool” who “hath said in his heart, there is no God.” Notice more of what God said through Paul about the evolutionary theory, and the MOTIVES of evolutionists: “For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

“And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfootedbeasts, and creeping things.

“Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

“Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

“And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselvesthat recompense of their error which was meet [“fitting,” a vague reference to such horrible diseases as AIDS].

“And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient [not right; not lawful]” (Romans 1:20-28).

If you read my other brochure on evolution, published a few months ago, you saw the plain admission of the MOTIVES of evolutionists, who do not want knowledge of God, or of His laws, interfering with their life styles.

Soon, now, we will no longer be living in a time where men are in the slightest doubt about the existence of God. Soon, now, and Christ will rend the heavens, and appear at the helm of His invading, conquering army, to OCCUPY this earth, and rule it with a rod of iron! At that time, there will not be a single skeptic, agnostic, or atheist left anywhere on earth!

You may copy and distribute this information only to friends and family without changes, without charge and with full credit given to the author and publisher. You may not publish it for general audiences.

This publication is intended to be used as a personal study tool. Please know it is not wise to take any man’s word for anything, so prove all things for yourself from the pages of your own Bible.

The activities of the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association are paid for by tithes, offerings and donations freely given by Christians and co-workers who are dedicated to preaching the gospel according to Jesus Christ. 

The post EVOLUTION-The BIG LIE Of Atheists And Agnostics! first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.

There are literally thousands of proofs that a Creator God exists. The Bible says we can know much about our Creator by looking at the things He has made! Paul wrote, “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

“Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them [evident to them; plain to see, right before their eyes!] ; for God hath showed it unto them.

“For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world [by looking at the creation itself] are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened” (Romans 1:18-21).

We know a house had an architect and a builder. We know an automobile had a manufacturer. We know a child had parents. We know a watch had a maker. We know that an airplane was designed by aeronautical engineers, and that crystals form the same way every time, according to their properties. We know that mosquitos hatch from larvae, which were laid by adult mosquitos, which were hatched from larvae, just as we know chickens were hatched from eggs, which were laid by adult hens, which were hatched from eggs. We know that all life exists in a cycle, and that life comes only from pre-existing life. Further, life comes only from pre-existing life of the same kind.

These are absolutes. They are inexorable, immutable, unchanging.

It is important to remember, however, that there is such a thing as “micro-evolution,”  almost limitless variety within a Genesis kind; almost limitless adaptation. Hundreds of examples are instantly evident; moths which adapt to their environment, becoming virtually invisible as they take on the texture and color of plants and trees so as to conceal themselves from predators; the many hundreds of breeds of dogs (resulting, in the main, from man’s selective breeding); the incredible variety within the human race, from pygmies in the Ituri Forest in Africa to a Swede who is seven feet tall; from tiny Shetlands and miniature horses to the huge Percheron and Clydesdale; the myriad species of birds.

Evolutionists are fond of pointing to ‘micro-evolution,’ meaning the many varieties within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved into a different kind!  This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. A snowshoe rabbit, which is white in the winter and brown in the summer is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey. A chameleon which is green on a green leaf and brown on a brown leaf is still a chameleon, and will give birth to other chameleons, not to a different species.  Actually, the very fact of such marvelous adaptation, such as the camouflage of certain birds, insects, animals and fish, is another proof of a Great Designer and Creator.

All around us are proofs of God. The closer we look into the marvels of what men refer to as “Mother Nature” (interesting they refuse to call it “Father”), the more awesome, the more law-abiding, the more intricate, the more perfectly designed.

We know much about the Creator by looking at His creation. Creation means all that is; all that exists. That means the entire universe; all the stars and their planetary systems; all laws, all energy, all matter.

We know that matter is energy arranged in intricate, law‑abiding ways. Matter is anything that has weight  and occupies space. Even air is “matter.” Air consists of different kinds of gases, mostly oxygen, hydrogen and carbon dioxide, and suspended particulate matter. Where did it come from? What was before it? Oxygen in air is the result of the action of living plants and diatoms in the sea. Carbon dioxide results from humans and animals’s extracting oxygen, and giving off carbon dioxide. There is no “air” on the moon, or the other plants. Some of the planets are surrounded by thick, gaseous mantles which would be poisonous to life.

Obviously, a study of only a part of creation would require enough books to fill a very large library. Every conceivable physical science would be involved: Astronomy, Biology,  Geology and all the subdivisions of such fields, such as historical and dynamic geology, microbiology and genetics‑‑a vast field of special disciplines involving every aspect of the material universe would be involved in such a  study. You should do yourself a favor, and, limiting your study to only one subject of the myriad number available, go to a public library, and study the articles in an encyclopedia about such mundane, taken-for-granted things as “air,” or “water,” or “light.” I  promise you, you will be fascinated for the simple reason that most quit studying such things the moment they graduated from high school.

“Terra Firma,” The Rocks Beneath Our Feet

Nothing is more immediately obvious  when thinking of “the creation,” than the rocks beneath our feet. To illustrate only a few of these thousands of challenges to the vain theory of evolution, let’s investigate the so‑called “geologic succession of strata.” This phrase suggests there is an orderly succession in the rocks of our earth; that the most ancient rocks are always on the “bottom”, and that the younger rocks, containing much more “recent” forms of fossil life, are always on top.

Are the “oldest” rocks always on the bottom? In a sense, this is an irrelevant question, for the “geologic succession of strata,” having used a false system of measurement, has labeled so-called “older” rocks which they claim are atop so-called “younger” rocks, and then tried to explain away this anomaly by devious means.

As you will see, according to their false system of labeling strata, evolutionists have erroneously labeled the rocks. The terms “older” and “younger” are applied, not because of the order of the rocks; the depth at which they are found, or which layer is atop another, but because of the kind of fossil life forms found within the rocks!

As you will see, this is reasoning in a circle, and not true science at all. Evolutionary geology is built around the presupposition that our earth consists of layers of rock found in succession as they were deposited over aeons of time; that the very oldest rocks, containing no fossils, are at the bottom; that the “Archeozoic” and “Proterozoic” (“before life”) rocks contain no fossil remains; that the early “Paleozoic” rocks contain only “simple” life forms; that “Mesozoic” rocks contain ever more complex life forms until one arrives at the most “recent” strata, such as the ice ages (Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pliocene, Pleistocene, and Recent), where one finds mammoths and man.

Further, evolutionary hypotheses are based upon the supposition that all these rocks were laid down over vast aeons of time; that the fossil record shows the passage of billions of years; that the fossils in the rocks were not laid down suddenly, as a result of great catastrophes, like a world‑wide flood! Yet, the Bible not only asserts that the flood of Noah was global, but allows, in the first verses of Genesis, for any number of submergences of the continental land masses beneath the waters of the seas. Any geologist knows that fossil sea shells are found atop the highest mountains on earth; from the Rockies to the Himalayas, from the Atlas to the Alps.

Evolutionists are fond of arranging the fossils as they are allegedly found in the rocks in museums, and in illustrations in textbooks. Yet, most laymen have assumed that only the deepest, most “ancient,” strata contain these “primitive” fossil forms. This, in spite of the fact that fossil dinosaurs are found on or near the surface in places from China to Colorado. Evolutionists established a theory long ago, and have built an incredibly warped, shaky, unstable superstructure atop it. They date the strata by the fossils found in them, and then date the fossils by the supposed age of the strata.

As one collegiate‑grade text asserts, “All fossil evidence has some significance in determining the geologic time of deposition of strata. Thus in the case of man the correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals is the chief reliance in dating stone age man with regard to the various glacial and interglacial stages of that epoch.”

Did you notice the important admission here? The author is asserting that “stone age man” is assigned a certain date because of “correlation of artifacts with the bones of extinct Pleistocene mammals.”

Once this false concept is assumed, it leads to incredible errors in dating fossil life. The author continued, “Again, any strata that contain dinosaur bones must be Mesozoic; those with vertebrate remains must be later than Ordovician, and trilobite fossils mean Paleozoic time” (“Geology,” by von Engeln and Caster, p. 435, emphasis mine).

Talk about dogma. Note that well. “Any strata that containdinosaur bones must be Mesozoic.”  While this is simply not so, it sounds like a pronouncement issued by an individual that claims infallibility.  A kind of evolutionary pope, speaking from the holy see of erudition and anti-God evolution, issuing an infallible edict which all are required to accept.

There are insurmountable difficulties with the so‑called “Geologic Succession of Strata,” Let’s take a look at some of them.

The “Geologic Succession Of Strata” Is False!

First, there is no place on earth where the entire Geologic Succession of Strata can be found. Obviously, the concept of the earth’s sedimentary rocks being found in orderly form, from most ancient to most recent is impossible to begin with. Where did the rocks come from? Rocks are either sedimentary (water deposited), metamorphic (formed by changes caused by faulting and pressure) or igneous (volcanic). Since there are no fossils in igneous rocks, and since there are virtually no fossils in metamorphic rocks, scientists are limited to investigating the water‑borne deposits, such as various kinds of marbles, sandstone, limestone and shale, to establish an age for the strata.

The strata are dated according to the fossils found in them. The fossils are dated according to the strata in which they are found. Does that sound rather arbitrary? It is. As we shall see, evolutionary geology immediately discards data; facts — evidence in the amount of billions of tons of rock; whole mountain ranges, mammoth regions of the earth, where the fossils found in the rocks contradict their theories.

True science always alters a given theory to admit proven facts. Not so with evolution. To illustrate this point, let’s get right to one of the most poignant and embarrassing, proofs. An important one is the ridiculous attempt by geologists to claim that whenever the fossils are “out of order” according to their “geologic succession of strata,” there is something wrong with the rocks!  They say in many cases the rocks are upside down — completely out of order!

When you walk into your bedroom and see the bed made, you probably suppose your wife spread the sheet on the bed prior to the cover, and the cover prior to the bedspread. She would look a little silly putting the bedspread on first, and then burrowing beneath it, attempting to spread the sheet. If she had done so out of caprice, there would probably be evidence pointing to the fact, for it would be virtually impossible to do a neat job unless she once again straightened the bedspread.

When you view layers of rock as exposed in highway cuts, canyons (like the Grand Canyon of Arizona) and river banks, and you see massive layers, sometimes twenty, thirty feet thick, seemingly as smooth and cohesive as if they had been mixed in a blender, lying conformably atop each other in orderly succession, it is logical to assume the layers on the bottom (if no evidence of faulting, such as tilted, folded, or fractured strata: isoclines, synclines, etc., is present) were deposited first; then the ones immediately above them, and, lastly, the layer on the top, like a chef would make a layer cake.

You would be quite correct, of course. However, evolutionists often tell us we are wrong to assume the younger strata are always atop older strata. Why? Because the fossils found in so‑called “younger” strata are often found beneath so‑called “older” strata.

When this occurs, as it quite frequently does, evolutionists become incredibly inventive. In order to tenaciously cling to their theories, in many regions, including large areas of significant mountain ranges, they seek to explain away the arrangement of millions of tons of rocks; miles upon miles of rocks where the fossils are out of proper order; sometimes “upside down.” Not that they are really “upside own,” please note, but that it appears “older” fossils are found in rocks above “younger” fossils, when these “older” fossils were supposedly extinct for millions of years! Yet, the layers appear undisturbed!

Problem! The rocks appear to have been smoothly laid down; are conformable to each other, showing no evidence of massive faulting, overthrusts, or any other activity. What a headache! What a problem for evolutionists!  If they admit what their eyes plainly tell them, they would be admitting their entire scheme of the “geologic succession of strata” iswrong; admitting that the supposed younger fossils did not evolve from supposed older, simpler ones!

But such an admission would be disastrous to evolutionists!

So, presto!  Forget the evidence.  Claim the rocks are “upside down!” Those rocks just have no right to be sitting there, mute, weighing billions of tons, in a ridiculous posture, containing the wrong kind of fossils!  Like many a clever defense attorney, just because the defendant was standing there, holding the gun, with the smoke still issuing forth, doesn’t mean he was the one who pulled the trigger!

What kind of force would be required to superimpose massive layers of rock, weighing millions of tons, atop other layers? The kind of forces which caused mountain‑building; overthrusts, isoclines, synclines and geosynclines. When one sees twisted, tilted, and folded strata, which is clearly visible throughout the Swiss Alps, many other major mountain ranges, and in highway cuts in Southern California, one is seeing evidence of massive earthquakes on a scale never experienced in the history of mankind. Whenever a “younger” layer of rock is allegedly found beneath an “older” layer of rock, there is inescapable physical evidence which demonstrates how such an unusual phenomenon could have occurred.

To be sure, there are cases where such things can and do occur.  Such vast movement of massive regions of land would cause grinding, crushing destruction of the rocks closest to the moving layers, reforming them into “metamorphic” rocks, destroying all fossils.  Certainly, there could not have survived such delicate fossil forms as worm tracks, ferns and leafs, ripple marks, and the like after such catastrophic crushing and grinding. Any layman can look at two layers of rock, and determine if “slickensides,” the polished rocks formed at the place where faulting and slippage of the rocks occurred, is present. But what if the layer of rock (stratum) containing the so‑called “older” fossils, and the stratum containing the so‑called “younger” fossils beneath it show absolutely no evidence of any twisting, faulting, or movement? What if there is perfect conformity between them?

Obviously, they were deposited just as you view them. Therefore, assertions that  fossils beneath other fossils are younger than the fossils atop them–perhaps by countless millions of years–are simply false. Though evolutionists may claim they are somehow “out of order,” or that we are viewing “deceptive conformity,” we are actually seeing the fossils in their respective layers of rock reposing in the exact order in which they were deposited.

You and I know that when mud is deposited by flooding, then gradually hardens, it begins to crack. Then, it erodes. Animals walk about upon it. Wind blows. Summer storms come along. In other words, any deposits of alluvial soil, slowly drying as the water which carried it there recedes, will show obvious evidence of the passage of time.  Especially when that time is assumed to be measured in the millions or even billions of years!

When any two layers containing so‑called “upside down” fossils record are lying perfectly, smoothly, uninterruptedly together, as if the tide of mud which had deposited the bottom layer had no sooner receded when another flow of different mud, containing different forms of life, came from another direction and was deposited immediately, it is obvious that the evolutionists have made a serious error in their dating theories.

The rocks are not in error. Evolutionists are. When one cannot  slip a thin knife between two smoothly‑mixed layers of sandstone; when there is absolutely no evidence of any erosion, or overthrust faulting (which would crush the rock, grind it, metamorphose it, and cause a completely different kind of rock structure), then one must assume the rocks were deposited exactly as they appear —  the older on the bottom, and the younger on the top, like your sheet and your bedspread.

Of course, what you are looking at when you see such strata piled atop each other so uniformly is in itself evidence of a massive catastrophe; floods on unimaginable scale which held vast amounts of silts and muds in dissolution, and which came flowing over the recently‑deposited mud of a previous tide. That huge amounts of the rocks in the earth’s surface were deposited suddenly is anathema to evolutionists, for they detest the word “catastrophism,” a word which means much of the geologic formations on the earth were the result of gigantic catastrophes, such as huge floods, giant earthquakes, and the unimaginable movement of the tectonic plates.

Their false theories require vast amounts of time! Time for birds to evolve from dinosaurs; for four-footed quadrupeds to climb down from trees, enter the oceans, and gradually have their nostrils move from their nose to their foreheads; their hairy bodies become sleek skin, until they become toothed whales and dolphins!

Evolutionists simply will not admit that different layers of strata, containing vastly different species, could have lived contemporaneously. Once having insisted that their supposed “geologic succession of strata” is correct, they stolidly refuse to alter the theory to suit the facts.

“Rock Bottom” — Where Is It? Which Layer Is “On The Bottom?”

Which stratum is the oldest of all fossil‑bearing rock, and therefore (according to evolution) contains the “earliest” and “simplest” of all life forms?  Long ago, evolutionary theory accepted as fact that primitive, simple life forms are invariably found at the “bottom” of the layers of rocks; that, as one progresses through layer after layer toward the “top,” the life forms become ever more complex. This is a given. Virtually every high school graduate who has been introduced to only a little sample of geology, or history, or biology, has been told repeatedly that this is so. But it is not so.

Long ago, evolutionists used the order of fossils found in a few regions in Western Europe and New York state to establish their evolutionary column. They have assumed that fossil forms of ancient life are invariably found in the same order all over the world. Such is not the case. In fact, evolutionary geologists have not yet determined, with any degree of certainty,  which layer of rock is the “bottom” insofar as the fossil record is concerned.

As one eminent geologist says, “For any given limited locality, where stratigraphy can be followed out, the lowest beds are certainly the oldest. But we can make no progress by such a method when we come to deal with the world at large, for actual stratigraphical relationships can be proved over only very limited areas.

“These beds may be the lowest in this locality, may rest on the granite or crystalline schists, and have every appearance of antiquity. But other beds containing very different fossils, are in precisely this position elsewhere, and where stratigraphical order can no more prove the relative age of their fossils than the overlap of scales on a fish proves those at the tail to be older than those at the head” (Evolutionary Geology And The New Catastrophism, by Price: p. 78, emphasis mine).

Price goes on to show how “…any kind of fossiliferous rock whatever, even ‘young’ Tertiary rocks, may rest upon the Archaean or Azoic series, or may themselves be almost wholly metamorphosed or crystalline, thus resembling in position and outward appearance the so‑called ‘oldest’ rocks” (ibid. p. 79).

In his chapter on “finding bottom,” Price concludes, “…I see no escape from the acknowledgment that the doctrine of any particular fossils’ being essentially older than others is a pure invention, with absolutely nothing in nature to support it” (ibid. p. 87).

Evolutionary geology operates on a false assumption that the layers of rock on the earth are invariably found in the same order, like the layers of an onion. Obviously the whole world is not like an onion, with the oldest rocks on the bottom, progressing upward until arriving at the most “recent” rocks, for the earth is round, after all, and each layer of sedimentary rock was water borne, and had to come from some other area, where the materials the water carried were scoured by massive floods; tides, rivers, and so‑on. Logically, the area so scoured is now absent the exact amount of materials which were deposited elsewhere.

Bottom, or the lowest rocks next to the liquid magma upon which the tectonic plates “float” is naturally where there are no fossils in evidence, according to evolutionary theory. Bottom means, usually, “bedrock” of granite and various schists; metamorphic rock, atop which one finds sedimentary rock, containing various fossil forms. But, as Price proves, “Since the life‑succession theory [evolution] rests logically and historically on the biological form of Werner’s onion‑coat notion that only certain kinds of rocks (fossils) are to be found at the ‘bottom,’ or next to the Archaean, or Primitive, and it is now acknowledged everywhere that any kind of rocks whatever may be thus situated [including Tertiary rocks, containing fossils of mammoths and men!], it is as clear as sunlight that the life‑succession theory rests logically and historically on a myth, and that there is no way of proving what kind of fossil was buried first”(ibid. p. 87).

In spite of such overwhelming evidence, evolutionists cling to their false theory. Students who intend entering the teaching field in the subjects of anthropology or paleontology are not taught from books such as those by Nelson, Price, Whitcomb and Morris, and a host of others. They are never told about such books, which are dismissed by evolutionary geologists; completely ignored.

Yet, there are many studious works which completely dismantlethe evolutionary theory. Outstanding examples are “Darwin On Trial,” by Phillip E. Johnson, published by Regnery Gateway, Washington, D.C., and “Evolution‑‑Possible or Impossible?” by James F. Coppedge, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan, and “The Bone Peddlers‑‑Selling Evolution,” by William R. Fix, published by Macmillan. Two excellent and very recent books are those by James Perloff, “Tornado in a Junkyard,” published in 1999, and “The Case Against Darwin,” published in 2002.

Price conclusively shows, most of the rocks of our earth prove great catastrophes occurred in the past; and most of the sedimentary rocks, including miles and miles of coal beds show very recent“catastrophes,” such as massive floods. Since God’s word speaks of a global flood, and the rocks cry out in a great roaring voice that “A massive flood caused this,” only a fool would ignore the obvious message of the rocks. It requires on the average about a forty foot thick layer of vegetation ripped up, and water borne to then be crushed beneath subsequent layers of muds to form a seam of coal only one foot thick. Coal beds prove gargantuan catastrophes in the past, as do many, many other strata, such as marbles, which are sometimes formed from solid masses of sea bottom life.

All such evidence completely destroys the theory that it required vast aeons of time for various forms of life to “evolve” into other, remarkably different forms of life; that men eventually evolved from “simple, one-celled animals” like amoeba.

To assume that our continents and islands; the massive mountain ranges of our earth, and all topographical features of the land are the result of “uniformity;” that we are viewing the results of a very slow, gradual process which required billions of years is sheer nonsense.

Our present river systems and deltas portray only a very recent development. In the North American continent are hundreds of dry lake beds, vast areas where ancient inland sea shores are clearly visible. The Great Salt Lake is but a tiny puddle remaining from massive “Lake Bonneville,” which was a massive inland sea at one time. The Mississippi River is but a tiny trickle when compared with the monstrous drainage basin that once surged toward the South, carrying untold amounts of silts and sediments that were deposited across many states. When the North American continent was thrust upward from the seas which covered it, the buckling of the tectonic plates beneath caused the massive mountain building that is evident by looking at the great Rocky Mountains; the Cascades, and the Sierra Madre mountains. In the river valleys one discovers deep layers of sedimentary rocks. Along the spines of the mountains, one sees the ancient granites and schists; upthrusts of “bedrock” that soar as high as 14,000 feet in the continental United States, and above 22,000 feet in Chile.

Here and there, at incredibly high elevations, one discovers fossils which could only have existed in the seas; fossils preserved, not through the process of gradual change, but uprooted, sorted by alluvial action, and deposited by the millions, suddenly.

The vast San Juaquin Valley of California was once a gigantic bay, teeming with sea life. At its southern end, around Bakersfield, are supposedly some of the “oldest” mountains found on the North American continent. Why the so-called oldest? Because paleontologists have found fossilized sharks there, and, since the kinds of sharks found “belong” to a certain stratum found elsewhere, and therefore must be of a certain “age,” that same age is assigned to the hills around Bakersfield.

Among these rolling, yet steep and gravely hills is “Shark Tooth Mountain.” Actually, it is not just one mountain, but a number of ridges and ravines; smaller hills, which contain countless hundreds of thousands of sharks teeth and bones.

Many years ago, it proved one of the most exciting “classes” of the year when I would arrange a field trip for my college students to go to “Shark’s Tooth Mountain.” We would take wire mesh baskets with wooden frames, into which we would shovel the gravely soil. By shaking the loose soil rapidly, like a winnowing process, the dirt and smaller pieces would fall through the mesh, and, with surprising regularity, we would discover shark’s teeth of various sizes. Some were found right on the surface.

Our field trips proved to us that, at some time perhaps many thousands of years ago, a vast inland basin, or bay, had existed in central California, of which San Francisco Bay is but a tiny remnant. Further, that this shallow inland basin, or sea, contained countless fish and sharks. Further, that some great catastrophe had suddenly killed all that sea life. Further, that, due to the sorting action of water, and massive tides flowing this way and that as the former inland sea drained, the decaying bodies of millions of fish and sharks were mangled and torn; that there were so many of them, that hundreds of thousands of teeth were deposited in one small region. A study of specific gravity; the density of various bodies in water and how they are “sorted” by fluvial action is all that is necessary to understand the process.

“Reading” the rocks by noting the kinds of fossil forms found within them; the shape and texture of the rocks; the accompanying rocks above, below, and all around them, is not difficult. These rounded, yet steep hills had obviously been deposited by massive tides and waves which had sluiced back and forth for many years, as what had once been a salt water basin was being raised above the level of the Pacific, and the millions of creatures which lived in it were trapped, died, were torn apart; their remains being “sorted” so that they were deposited as we found them.

The entire journey was a fascinating study in paleontology and geology, for in the highway cuts between the mountains, we could see plain evidence of massive faulting, folding, twisting of the strata. Of course, we drove right through the famous “San Andreas” fault, where mind-boggling earthquakes have occurred in the past.

Perhaps those who live on the plains, or in farming states like Iowa or Illinois, are not quite so aware of how great catastrophes formed and shaped our continent. Yet, they have only to look at the  rich black soil of Iowa, note its depth, determine which kinds of rocks lie beneath it, and so-on, to appreciate how America’s richest soil was formed by the fluvial action of water, many thousands of years ago. It is ludicrous to assume, for example, that the Grand Canyon of Arizona is the result of the slow, gradual scouring action of today’s Colorado River! One only has to journey downstream for a few hundred miles, to the dams along the Colorado River system along the border with California, to see “conglomerates” and other sedimentary deposits which show immediate evidence of massive river flows in the past.

When you see huge stones, as large as automobiles, lying mixed among rocks of every conceivable size and shape, as well as gravels and sand–when those rocks, no matter how large, or how small, are rounded; many of them smoothed off, so as to have very few jagged edges, it means they were rolled and tumbled along for many, many miles together.

The operative word is “together.” It requires massive flows of water to tumble rocks that are as large as a house! Only by river flows that are hundreds of times larger than the present flow of the Colorado could those rocks have been deposited together, obviously at the same time.

Evolutionists may not like the word “catastrophe” being applied to geology and paleontology, but it is the only word applicable when one looks at the plain chapter and verse of the rocks themselves. Only a casual study of the Grand Canyon tells us of at least two of the most massive floods imaginable: the first, when the huge layers of sedimentary rock were deposited all over the southwest–layers which lie smoothly mixed, perfectly conformable to each other, for many, many miles. The second, when those water-deposited layers were scoured to the depth of one mile, carving out the most awesome, massive canyon on earth, and depositing billions of tons of rock in jumbled profusion for hundreds of miles.

“Uniform” flows of the Colorado did not deposit the gigantic layers of sandstone, many of them  60 to 80 feet thick, mixed as smoothly as if in a giant blender, which are visible along the rim of the Grand Canyon. Neither did “uniform” flow of the river, even including seasonal variations due to flooding, accomplish the scouring of the entire Grand Canyon.

Your eyes and camera which can record such awesome sights, and which does not lie, tell you, “this was a massive catastrophe” at some ancient time in the past, not the result of gradual processes; not the result of the deposition of sands and silts along a single river bank.

“Evolutionary Geology And The ‘New Catastrophism,’” by George M. Price (Pacific Press) is a book I highly recommend to serious students of the question of whether evolution is true, or whether God exists. It is replete with examples from all over the world like that mentioned above; geologic evidence of “catastrophes,” which occurred suddenly which are simply irrefutable. Unfortunately, it may be out of print, although it might be possible for one of the large Internet book sellers to find a copy, or it might be found in a used book store.

As David said, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God” (Psalm 14:1).

There are many educated fools in this world.

You may copy and distribute this information only to friends and family without changes, without charge and with full credit given to the author and publisher. You may not publish it for general audiences.

This publication is intended to be used as a personal study tool. Please know it is not wise to take any man’s word for anything, so prove all things for yourself from the pages of your own Bible.

The activities of the Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association are paid for by tithes, offerings and donations freely given by Christians and co-workers who are dedicated to preaching the gospel according to Jesus Christ.

The post “UPSIDE DOWN”–The Distorted Theory of Evolution first appeared on Garner Ted Armstrong Evangelistic Association.