Tonight we're going to be talking about what is creation science and I think that
needs to be done because it has been grossly misrepresented.
I think one of the best places to start is with a statement by Chief Justice
Rehnquist and Justice Scalia.
As they were considering the issue in the Edwards versus Seguillard case,
the Balanced Treatment Act from Louisiana, this was an act that was ruled
unconstitutional.
Really, really bad things they wanted to do in Louisiana.
They wanted to have balanced treatment on this issue and they decided they didn't
need that.
We'll talk more about it in a moment.
But in the process, Rehnquist and Scalia says, we have no basis on the record to
conclude that creation science need be anything other than a collection of
scientific data supporting the theory that life abruptly appeared on the earth.
And I agree with them.
That's what we're talking about, the scientific evidence.
As illustrated on the slide, we're talking about what we can see and touch and taste,
the empirical evidence.
Well now, how is that going to tell us whether things were created or just
naturally occurred?
Can you distinguish between natural origins and created intelligent design
origins by looking at the physical?
Well, let me illustrate.
We look at this rock.
Tell me about the origin.
Did this happen naturally or did someone design it?
Well, you've got a pretty good idea.
This probably happens naturally.
On the other hand, we see this rock and I don't think that happened naturally.
I think created design is the best explanation and I think most would agree.
But now then, we have entered into the area that has to be relegated to the
Sunday school classroom.
You can't have that in the school room.
Does that make sense to you?
You can, by looking at the empirical evidence, see whether this happened
naturally or whether it was designed and know this is not necessarily religion at
all.
Another very obvious illustration, I believe, is seen when you walk down the
beach and you see the lines, the lineations here that parallel the waves.
Now, was this natural or was this designed?
Well, you say that probably the waves did this.
It parallels the waves.
You can see them producing this kind of effect.
Some order, yes, but probably still of natural origin.
But you walk a little further and you see on the beach, John loves Mary.
Waves probably did that, you think.
But if you conclude that it must be intelligent design, now then you've got to
be in the Sunday school classroom.
You can't be in the school room.
I think that's just utter nonsense, but demonstrates that from the empirical
evidence you can see clear indications to distinguish between the natural and the
design.
And when we look at the universe around us, we see abundant evidence, I believe,
of design and that's going to be our theme actually throughout the week.
But when we look, for example, at this bacterial flagellum, a little tail
on the end of the bacteria that helps it propel, this is astounding.
When Darwin looked at the quote, simple cell, he saw what was called a
black box.
That's all he could tell.
Well, as we learn more about it, it's like a city with factories and just
mind-boggling complexity.
This particular machine, and that's the only way to describe it, is an electrical
motor.
It has rotors, it has stators, it has o-rings, bushings and u-joints,
it has drive shafts.
All of this is coordinated in 30 functioning coordinated parts,
such that if any one of the 30 parts is missing, it doesn't work.
There's no way to get the first five and then work for a little while and then
gradually get another one.
If you're missing any of them, it stops.
You've got to have all of them at once.
And I don't think there's any way to explain that in terms of a gradual
evolutionary process.
And the design is absolutely astounding.
It turns at up to 100,000 revolutions per minute and can reverse directions in a
quarter turn.
Our engineers today can't build that.
We don't have anything that our engineers can design that works that efficiently or
that works that well.
Now, if you see intelligent design in John loves Mary, what do you see when you see
an electric motor with better design than anything we've been able to come up with?
I don't think that's a hard question.
In fact, evolutionists understand that.
Richard Dawkins is one of the more prolific writers against creation for
evolution in our time.
He's from Oxford.
And he reminds people in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, right at the
beginning on page one, that biology is the study of complicated things that give the
appearance of having been designed.
That's the way he studies it, the way he defines biology.
Now, he doesn't believe it was designed, but it's an illusion.
Yeah, it looks that way and he admits it, but it's not so.
Francis Crick, Nobel laureate, co-discoverer, describer of DNA,
makes a similar statement when he says biologists must constantly keep in mind
that what they see was not designed, because obviously it looks that way and
you've got to really work at this or you'll get the wrong idea, because you
have to constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed.
And you've got to work at that, but rather evolve.
He has faith, of course, in that.
Well, I think maybe it's more reasonable to just believe that what it looks like is
what it is, but I think it's their philosophy that drives them in the
opposite direction in spite of how it looks.
We need to understand that as we're talking about origins, there are two
possibilities, and only two, and that's important for several reasons.
Notice the statement by Douglas Futuma, again a very prolific writer against
creation, but a well-known scientist.
He says, creation and evolution between them exhaust the possible explanations for
the origin of living things.
Organisms either appeared on earth fully developed or they did not.
If they did not, they must have developed from pre-existing species from some
process of modifications, naturally or suddenly, not natural.
And there are variations of each, but if we understand there are only two,
now sometimes we get the objection, well, you're only talking against
evolution and no evidence for creation.
And we're going to be dealing a lot with the evidence for evolution and showing
that it's not valid this evening, but if you'll be here for the rest of the
week, you'll see that charge is absolutely false.
But, if there's only A or B, and you show it's not A, you have given positive
argument for the other, haven't you?
But we're only allowed to have one of these views in the classroom.
You can only teach evolution because, after all, that's science and creation is
religion and never the twain shall meet.
I think that's naive to the point of being absurd.
Both evolution and creation can be investigated scientifically and I believe
we demonstrated that very simply and very easily and it will be more obvious as we
proceed.
And both evolution and creation have profound religious implications.
You mean evolution has religious implications?
Well, if you're not aware of that, you hadn't thought about it very much.
Let's look at some of the statements by some of the leading evolutionists in the
country, beginning with Edward Erickson, writing in the Humanist just a few years
ago.
He said the core of the humanistic philosophy is naturalism and this
naturalism is his religion.
That's the proposition that the natural world proceeds according to its own
dynamics without divine or supernatural control or guidance and that we humans
beings are creations of that process.
Obvious religious implications.
Richard Lewontin makes the point even stronger.
Again, one of the leading evolutionists in the country from Harvard.
He says it's not the methods and institutions of science that somehow
compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world.
Now, a lot of people think scientists wouldn't look at it that way.
No, it's not science that says you have to look at it naturally.
On the contrary, he says, we're forced by our a priori adherence to material causes
to create an apparatus of investigation, a set of concepts that produce material
explanations.
We have made up our mind we're going to see it naturally.
We adhere to that materialistic philosophy and we're going to set up all of the
investigations so that it produces that answer no matter how counterintuitive,
no matter how mystifying.
In other words, it may look crazy, but that's the way we're going to do it.
Moreover, that materialism is absolute for we cannot allow a divine foot in the door.
Now, this is the the philosophy that dominates in science and to say there's no
religion here is just extremely naive.
Notice the statement by Steven Pinker of MIT.
He said, no evidence would be sufficient to create a change in mind.
That it is not a commitment to the evidence.
Can you believe this?
This is a scientist speaking.
We're not committed to evidence in terms of this issue of materialism as opposed to
the divine, but it is a commitment to naturalism.
That's the thing that controls and nothing's going to change our mind.
They've made up their mind and that's where they are because there are no
alternatives, that is, except God and they're not going there.
We would almost have to accept natural selection as the explanation of life on
the planet even if there were no evidence for it.
Because then you are faced with God and they're not going to do it.
They have committed themselves to naturalism.
And so to say one is pure science and the other is religion is very naive and just
not so.
Isaac Isimov, perhaps the most prolific writer, written over 600 books,
recently deceased, an atheist, nevertheless says, I have faith and
believe myself, I believe nothing beyond those natural laws is needed.
That's his faith.
I have no evidence for this, it is simply what I have faith in and what I believe.
It's a blind faith.
He has decided to be, in his religion, a naturalist and he's committed to that.
He believes that because he wants to believe that, not because of the evidence.
And it's not because of science, it's because of a commitment to a
religious philosophy.
In fact, when you look at the philosophy of the unbeliever, they have to believe
just all kinds of nonsense to be an unbeliever.
Unbelievers are great believers.
They have to believe that an explosion produced all of the order that we see in
this universe.
That takes a lot of faith.
They believe that molecules somehow came into existence on their own and then
bounce around for tens of billions of years and become living cells all by
themselves.
And they believe that.
They believe that errors in the complex genetic system of that cell can produce
greater complexity.
I have not seen such faith in all Israel.
It's just unbelievable what an unbeliever has to believe to be an unbeliever.
But they say, we're going to be scientists and you're religious and you have one in
the classroom and you can't have the other.
Interestingly, late last year, a court decision rendered the conclusion
that atheism is religion.
And some folks up at the Wisconsin State Penitentiary got in trouble because they
didn't honor the religion of one of their cellmates there.
One of the people there and one of the inmates.
Federal Court of Appeals ruled yesterday atheism is religion.
And so people say that's not so well you got court decisions on the matter.
Michael Ruse is one of the leading philosophers in the country.
I attended a debate where he was defending his position last week in Los Angeles.
And he acknowledges evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere
science.
He says evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion, a
full-fledged alternative to Christianity with its meaning and morality.
Evolution is religion.
So the leading philosopher of science in the country says this is religious.
It's the alternative.
And they're committed to it devoutly.
But that's the religion that is established in our country.
Now our Constitution says you can't have a state religion established by the state,
supported by the state.
But we do.
And it is the religion of naturalism that is defined by the courts as a religion
that is promoted in our schools to the exclusion of all else, all other
religions, as propaganda.
And our tax dollars supported by the billions.
One very obvious example, the Chicago Field Museum of Natural History,
according to the Chicago Tribune just last year, said the whole core, and this is
from the president, the core of the museum is evolution.
And of course our tax dollars are supporting it.
Recent years it has dedicated a lot of resources to educate visitors about
evolution.
That includes spending seventeen million dollars in two years to recast its
permanent exhibit on evolution.
And we're paying for that.
That's the establishment of religion in our country.
Our schools pontificate humanistic naturalism without allowing any
alternative or allowing anyone to point out the weaknesses, typically.
For an example, Prentice Hall's biology textbook puts it this way, and this is a
standard high school biology text, there's no doubt that if you jump up in
the air you'll end up on the ground.
Makes no difference whether you understand or even believe in gravity.
Just as definitely life on earth evolved and is continuing to evolve all around us
all the time.
Supported by our tax dollars.
Just pontificating.
This is the way it is.
Yes, it is definitely religious and we have the establishment of religion.
But some would say, I understand the problem, but isn't it illegal to do
anything else?
And the answer is absolutely no, though the press would leave that
impression, and they do regularly.
And I can say that because I have Supreme Court authority to say that.
Again, referring to the Edwards versus Seguiliard case.
This time the majority, written by Brennan, tells us this.
The terribly unjust act that says you ought to have balanced treatment of these
issues.
This act does not grant teachers a flexibility they did not already possess.
In other words, you don't need this act.
You already have this flexibility to supplant the present science curriculum
with the presentation of theories besides evolution about the origin of life.
You already have that right, he says.
Teaching a variety of scientific theories about origins and as we've documented,
there's only two.
But you can do that.
It might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the
effectiveness of science education.
You can't do it to promote belief in the Bible or a particular religion.
But as science, you can validly teach a variety of origins as we looked at the
arrowhead as opposed to the natural rock.
We look at varieties of explanations of origins.
And yes, it is legal.
In fact, when this act was overturned, many in the press said, well, they've
outlawed creation science.
They said that.
They were lying, but they said it.
Stephen Gould was interviewed about that time and asked this question.
He's one of the more famous evolutionists of our time.
And he said, no statute exists in any state to bar instruction in creation
science.
It could be taught before, it could be taught now, which is certainly the case.
And most of the people in our country believe that we should look at all the
scientific evidence, all the scientific alternatives.
In Texas, just a few years ago, Zogby took a poll testing this concept
under the proposition, teach only Darwin's theory of evolution.
Sixteen percent agree.
And I don't believe it's that different across the country.
Regarding the proposition also, I mean, teach Darwin's theory,
also teach the scientific evidence against it.
Seventy-five percent agree, but the sixteen percent dominate.
And you can't do it in the classroom, or at least they don't do it.
It's not in the textbooks.
A more recent poll here by CBS Broadcasting was reported with the
headlines, creationism trumps evolution.
Now, to be fair, it should be creationism trumps evolutionism.
They kind of prejudiced it with their wording.
But testing the idea, or at least here leading the thought, Americans do not
believe that humans evolved.
The proposition was God created humans in present form.
All Americans, fifty-five percent agreed.
Humans evolved.
God did not guide the process.
Thirteen percent agreed, but the thirteen percent prevail.
And that's all that's taught in the classroom.
In spite of this propaganda in the classroom, a great deal of progress is
being made and a number of prominent scientists with tremendous opposition and
with great danger to their careers have taken a courageous stand.
And this was in 2001 in New Republic with the headlines, a hundred scientists take a
courageous stand.
And these were scientists in major scientific institutions across the country
like the Smithsonian, the American Museum of Natural History, some of the leading
universities.
And they say, we dissent from Darwinism.
We don't believe Darwinism can explain what we see in this world.
And a hundred of them signed the proposition and put their name and their
position there.
And since then, the momentum has grown and now over 700 have signed that proposition,
all with doctorates in the natural sciences, including scientists from the U
.S.
National Academy of Sciences, from the Russian, Polish, and Czech National
Academies, from universities such as Yale and Princeton and Harvard and Stanford and
MIT and Columbia and Purdue and Berkeley and UCLA and Duke and Cambridge and
Oxford.
Professors at these major institutions have said, we don't agree that Darwinism
explains origins.
And if you're wondering about Texas institutions, yes, 25 from A&M,
16 from University of Texas, 5 from Texas Tech are signatories to this particular
proposition.
And from my experience in speaking on those campuses, there are a whole lot more
that believe that.
They come up to me after I speak and say, I agree with you, Dr. Patton, I just,
I can't let it be known, but keep up the good work.
These are brave men, and I can tell all kinds of stories that would just give you
shivers about some of the things they endured because of the stand.
But in spite of this, leading scientists taking a stand against Darwinism,
we have men like Ernst Mayr saying, no educated person any longer questions
the validity of the so-called theory of evolution, which we know to be a simple
fact.
And we know him to be a simple liar.
He knows better.
I know he knows better.
But he says this anyway, in spite of the fact that there are many educated people,
as we've demonstrated.
Carl Sagan certainly knew better and acknowledged in his book, The Demon
Haunted World, only 9% of Americans accept that human beings, other species,
have slowly evolved by natural processes.
13 to 9% is what the polls reflect, depending on who asked and how it's asked.
But that's what dominates in the classroom, and I think that's a crying
shame.
And why is it that way?
I get asked that all the time.
And there's a simple answer to that.
It's because you and I have allowed it to happen.
And we need to think about that.
We are making progress in spite of the great disadvantages that we have in the
classroom.
Debates across the country have been held, and while they have slowed down and
virtually stopped,
we are enjoying... well, the evolutionists have given up because they're losing.
And they quit.
I had a debate scheduled several months ago at LSU with the head of the geology
department.
It had been scheduled for about six months.
I showed up, as did enough students to fill the auditorium, over 400 students,
but the professor didn't show.
And so I won.
We spoke for about an hour, had another hour of Q&A.
Some of them stayed till midnight.
The organization that put it on did a survey when they first came in the door,
gave out cards, and then collected them.
Fifty-four percent believed in creation.
When they arrived, that means, I think, creationists have a
disproportionate number that want to know about the evidence and are interested in
the facts.
They did a follow-up two weeks later, and ninety-one percent of those then
believed in creation.
It didn't help him not show up.
Niles Eldridge talks about these debates, and he has debated a number of times.
I debated him in Orlando, Florida.
He is curator of the American Museum of Natural History, professor at Columbia,
and he says creationists today, at least the majority of their spokesmen,
are highly educated, intelligent people.
Skilled debaters, they have always done their homework, and they nearly always
seem better informed than their opponents, who are reduced too often to a bewildered
state of incoherence.
I'm sorry, that's the way it is.
He says creationists travel all over the United States, visiting college campuses,
staging debates with biologists and geologists and anthropologists.
The creationists nearly always win, and he's right.
He was a pushover.
He had so much in print that he was just in serious trouble when he started.
When the press interviews evolutionists, they always have to interview Eugenia
Scott, who is president of the National Center for Science Education.
Sounds like a very prestigious organization.
It's just a watchdog group that hates creationists.
It's one she formed by herself.
And she says scientists should refuse formal debates because they do more harm
than good, and they're doing that now.
That's the standard procedure.
And they do do more harm than good for the evolutionists.
I was recently up in New York, some of you know Keith Sharp, and we were
lecturing there near Syracuse University, and he was trying to get a debate going,
and he challenged a hundred geologists within a hundred mile area, in my name,
to debate.
And they all refused, and so with his advertisements on the back he put,
here are the geologists who refused to debate Dr. Patton.
And it's not just me, I mean they have refused to debate creationists around the
world.
However, she goes on to say, but scientists still need to counter the
creationists.
In other words, let's talk about this, but make sure you do it when they're not
there.
Now, is that good science?
I think it's just nonsense, and I think we ought to ridicule it and make fun of it.
It's certainly very different from Darwin's view, who had a much more
reasonable perspective in Origin of the Species.
He says a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts
and arguments on both sides of each question.
Does that make sense?
That's what I believe.
Of course, when you do that, the creationists nearly always win,
as even the evolutionists acknowledge, and so they've stopped.
We're concentrating this evening on what is creation science.
We talked in general about what it is, and some of the controversies,
and the misrepresentations and why we're having difficulty in the classroom in the
first session.
But in order to clearly understand what we're talking about with creation science,
we have to define our terms, and this is seldom done, and results in a great deal
of misunderstanding.
And I'll allow the evolutionists to define terms, and I'd like to emphasize a
distinction that's made by G.A.
Kirkut in his book Implications of Evolution.
He was chosen to write this book, one of a series of international
monographs on evolution, and he says there's a theory which states that many
living animals can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that
new species are formed.
And in the context here, he's talking about variation, what I'd call horizontal
variation.
A cow gets a longer horn, longer horns or shorter horns, maybe becomes spotted,
but still a cow.
And sometimes those variations are called new species.
That's a very nebulous term.
If I'm resistant to penicillin and Ricky is not resistant to penicillin,
we're not different species.
But if bacteria becomes resistant to penicillin, or is, we'll talk more about
that in a moment.
And another one is not.
They're not, I mean, they're different species and it's just a very arbitrary
term.
But yes, there are things, changes, variations that we can see that are called
new species.
This can be called the special theory of evolution and can be demonstrated in
certain cases by experiments.
I would agree with that and illustrate it with the variation that we see in dogs
that can be bred within a few tens of years from a single source, all
interbreed, not different species, but variation within the kind,
as we would put it.
That's what he calls the special theory.
But he makes a distinction here between that and another concept.
On the other hand, he says there is a theory that all the living forms in the
world have arisen from a single source.
Now, that is a different idea and which itself came from an inorganic form.
This can be called the general theory of evolution.
This is the issue, not the special theory, which we can see and is not really an
issue.
But the idea that all came from a single source and it from an inorganic form,
illustrated here in this tree of life in the typical textbook.
This is the general theory and that's the issue.
And if we don't distinguish those concepts, we get a lot of
misunderstanding.
What we're talking about then, in terms of what we disagree with,
is a change from one kind to another kind, not variation within the kind.
We have all kinds of communication problems when we don't make that
distinction.
One fellow says, I see evolution in the lab every day and the other fellow says
evolution is not observable.
And they're both right, but they're talking about different things.
One says, I see these changes, a little extra bump that bacteria gets and
then changes back under certain circumstances.
The other one is talking about the change from the ape to man.
Well, that's not observable.
You can't repeat that in the classroom.
One speaking of special evolution, one speaking of general evolution.
And many times in argumentation, you see the change in definition from the
beginning of the argument to the end, which leads to any kind of conclusion you
want.
I've been in the classroom where professor would say, well, Mr. Patton, evolution is
just change.
Don't you believe in change?
And I say, sure I believe in change.
I've got some in my pocket, but I think we need to define our terms if we're going to
have a good conversation.
I've sent kids to college, as many of you have, and we could understand the person
saying it's a real nuisance to have to pay all that money to send the kid to college.
But then you look on the legal textbooks and the public nuisance is a crime.
And you can send people to jail for it.
And so if you switch those definitions in the process, you can say it's a nuisance
and it's a crime to send a kid to college.
We see the fallacy of that.
People begin to argue with these small variations and reach conclusions with
regard to the general theory that says all came from a common source.
And the fact that you see small variations doesn't prove all came from a single
source or that they all came from an inorganic source.
But that kind of switching of terms underlies just a ridiculous conversation
sometimes.
I think that's what's the explanation for Richard Dawkins' statement.
It's absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in
evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane, or wicked.
Now he's seeing some variations and you can see that.
Well, yes.
Therefore you have to believe all came from an inorganic source.
Well, no, that doesn't follow.
Well, but I can see this variation, yes.
But you see how the switch confuses.
Stephen Gould made a very reasonable statement when he says no myth deserves a
more emphatic death than the idea that science is an inherently impartial and
objective enterprise.
That's a myth.
Yet it continues to thrive among working scientists because it serves us so well.
That's no more true with scientists than it is with preachers or any other group
where you see ambition and careers at stake and people wanting to feed their
kids and they come up with conclusions that serve their purposes and that's true
in every field and certainly in science.
Maxwell Planet, who is a Nobel laureate, says a scientific truth does not triumph
by convincing its opponents and making them see the light.
Now we're told that and we maybe think that.
Now here's a fellow who knows, a Nobel laureate.
No, that's not how you get people to change their minds, he says, but rather
because opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that's familiar with.
You've got to have some funerals to have progress in science.
That's a rather negative statement and maybe overstated but it's not completely
untrue.
How should science work?
When we say things are proved scientifically we've got to have some way
to determine whether it is or isn't.
It's not just who hollers the loudest or shouldn't be.
When we're talking about absolute proof, scientific proof, we're talking about at
least four criteria.
First, that it is an observable phenomenon.
If we can't observe it then there's no way to prove it scientifically.
It's got to be repeatable so that you see it and somebody else can see the same
thing.
It should be experimental so that you can perform tests to see if it's verified or
falsified and it must be at least potentially falsifiable.
It must be some kind of a test so that if this happens it's not so and if you can't
come up with a test like that it's not testable or falsifiable.
Well how do these apply then to the creation evolution controversy?
Is evolution in the general sense, not the special sense, in the general
sense observable?
Can we see this in the living world?
And we've asked this question and it's interesting to see the variation in
answers.
G.
Leonard Stebbins of Harvard, one of the leading evolutionists in the country,
says the reason the major steps of evolution, and he's talking here about the
general theory, you see, have never been observed is that they require millions of
years.
And of course that's the concept but still you don't observe them.
It's historical, you see, and so he acknowledges that.
Again, Jeffrey Swartz, professor of anthropology at the University of
Pittsburgh, a famous evolutionist, says it was and still is the case that
with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly,
one that got an extra bump and then lost it, but anyway, he says this fruit fly is
the exception.
But the formation of a new species by any mechanism has never been observed.
Some would make the statement even stronger than that.
We don't see it in the living world.
But of course you look at the fossil record and you record what has happened
over the millions of years, you should be able to see it.
So maybe not in the living world because it takes too long, but what about the
fossil record?
Again, Stephen Gould, one of the leading authorities writing in natural history,
says the extreme rarity of the transitional forms, and how would you see
evolution in the fossil record?
Well, you see the transitional forms.
The only way you could see it, the extreme rarity in the fossil record,
persists as the trade secret of paleontologists.
We view our data is so bad we never see the very process we profess to study.
D.B.
Kitsch, University of Oklahoma, made a similar statement, maybe even
stronger, when he says despite the promise that paleontology, that's the study of
fossils, provides a means of seeing evolution, it has presented some nasty
difficulties.
You don't see it in the fossil record or in the living world.
It's not observable.
What about numbers two and three, repeatability, experimentation?
Theodosius Dobzhansky of Columbia, perhaps the most representative authority
in defining the present view of evolution, says these evolutionary happenings are
unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible.
And he's talking about things like the change from Australopithecus up to Homo
sapien, the ape man to the modern man.
You don't repeat that.
It's irreversible.
The applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique
historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time
intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.
And so it's not repeatable and it's not subject to experimentation.
Well, there goes one, two, and three.
What about number four, falsifiability, the testability?
Colman Patterson was curator of the largest fossil museum in the world,
British Museum of Natural History, and he makes similar statements.
He says it is, he's talking about the general theory, unique and unrepeatable
like the history of England.
This part of the theory, in parentheses, that evolution has occurred is therefore a
historical theory about unique events, and unique events are by definition not a
part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test.
But that's the essence of falsifiability.
All four of these criteria are not met when you're looking at the general theory
of evolution.
Takes too long, you can't repeat it, it's not subject to experimentation,
it's like a history, you can't test it.
And so why say this is scientifically proved?
Well, either you don't know what scientific proof is, or you're not telling
the truth.
Maybe there's a third alternative, I'll be glad to listen, but it looks to me
like if somebody just jumps up and down and says, I know this is proved
scientifically, one of those two is so.
Not telling the truth, or he doesn't know what proof is.
Now, the same objections can be made about creation, you can't observe that,
you can't repeat it, it's not subject to experimentation, it'd be very difficult to
falsify.
And actually on the point of falsifiability, both creation and
evolution have some falsifiability connected with it, and we'll talk more
about that.
But generally, certainly when you're talking about the major arguments for
evolution, like survival of the fittest, okay, what is the fittest?
Well, it's those that survive.
You're talking about the survival of those that survive.
How do you test that?
It's not testable.
But generally speaking, neither creation or evolution are subject to absolute
scientific proof.
It doesn't meet the criteria of this empirical proof.
However, both of them can be investigated scientifically, as we illustrated in the
beginning of the presentation this evening, not reaching a conclusion that
says proof, it is absolutely certain, proved scientifically, but reaching a
probabilistic conclusion, this is more likely, this is more scientific than the
other.
This is under the heading of model comparison.
We look at the evidence that we can see, and we propose models.
Here's an idea, here's another idea, which one fits the facts best?
And that's the proper approach with these two models, neither of which can be
observed directly.
We don't see the ape evolve into the man, we don't see the man created, but we can
see a lot of evidence that tells us a lot about the possibilities, and we can
compare that evidence to see which model works best.
This is sometimes called the principle of Occam's razor, or the principle of
parsimony.
It simply says which view fits best, directly and simply.
Now, you can make any model fit with enough secondary, or tertiary,
or quaternary assumptions.
This works except for this, but if you assume that, okay, and then it fits except
over here, and then you make this assumption, and the more assumptions you
have to make, the poorer the model is.
The one that fits directly and simply, with the fewest secondary assumptions,
is the best model.
And that is a scientific approach, and the way we will proceed.
Let's think about, from that perspective then, which model, creation or evolution,
is served best when we look at what Darwin saw.
Let's just back up and see what convinced him that evolution was the best
explanation of origins.
He sailed around the world as the ship's naturalist on the Beatle, and he saw a lot
of strange-looking animals, especially in the Galapagos Islands, different from the
ones that he had seen in England.
And he talked a good deal about the finches, not initially, but later on he
developed this idea.
And he saw different finches on different islands, the islands without trees.
There you see the finches with the big heavy beaks, because they're making a
living eating the seeds that they have to break with their beaks.
But on the islands with trees, you have the finches with little pointy
beaks that can reach in the bark and get the insects.
And so they make a living better over here.
And that was the argument.
Look, it has evolved.
Natural selection has selected this type here, and selected this type here.
Now, how did they originate?
Were there the two types to start with, or did they develop?
Well, you can't really tell from... but you do see a variety of finches.
Beak shapes were different on different islands.
Now, are we seeing proof that all came from a common origin, and all came from
inorganic form?
At best, we're seeing evidence for special evolution.
And what we've learned about it since Darwin was there, is that all of these
finches interbreed.
Now, that's not in your textbook, but it is in the technical journals.
They're one species, according to that definition of species.
This is really not a great illustration of horizontal variation, or of special
evolution.
But that's all that it is.
He saw no evidence for general evolution.
But this is not the way it's presented.
Let me give you an example of the way this kind of evidence is presented.
And here, this made the headline just last year.
Darwin's finches evolved before scientists' eyes.
Now, Darwin saw the variations, but now then, here are people who are
studying it in great detail, and they see what happens to these finches when there
was a drought in the area for two years.
And then, of course, it changed when the drought was over.
But they saw the finches evolve right before your eyes.
For the first time, scientists have observed in real time evolutionary changes
in one species driven by competition for resources.
This drought caused this competition, and they saw evolution.
Sounds impressive, doesn't it?
What actually happened?
Well, this shrinkage of the beak that they observed during the drought first was less
than one millimeter.
That's not a whole lot.
You've got to look real close.
And this shrunken size was not something that developed that wasn't there before.
It's not new.
It was there before.
There are just more of them now.
Only the relative numbers changed.
There was the big and small, one millimeter difference before and after.
But during the drought, they could see that there were a few more with the
smaller size.
And then after the drought, it went right back.
So nothing accumulated.
But how do they report it?
Finches evolved before scientists' eyes.
They ought to be ashamed.
I mean, that's just disgusting when all they're seeing is a change in relative
numbers, and you have to wonder even about that when you see the small amount that
they're talking about.
And why do they... why do they present this kind of evidence?
Because they don't have any better.
Like the old argument, why does the stork stand on one leg?
If he lifted it up, he'd fall down.
If you don't have another one, you're in trouble.
But this is the best they can do.
And this is the kind of argument that's touted as proof.
And when you look and see what all the facts are, it's just nonsense.
Variation less than a millimeter in the numbers, not in the size.
The size changes were there all along.
Different finches like different cows.
I think we should think about what Darwin did not observe.
We see variation.
That doesn't really surprise us.
We see it in a litter of cats.
We see... we see it... I mean, we expect that.
But when we think about what birds would look like if evolution were true,
maybe we would see a cowbird or a bird dog, an elephant bird.
These are strange birds.
Maybe a baboon.
And why do we laugh at this?
We know this is nonsense, right?
I mean, there's no question.
This is crazy.
Darwin didn't see anything like this, and he's not going to see anything like
this.
What he did see, we expect.
It's not funny.
But the kind of thing that would be evidence of evolution would just shock the
daylights out of everybody.
And what is seen is at best horizontal variation, and in this case not a very
good example of that since they're all one species.
We see it in the dogs to a greater extent than we see in the finches, and we know
they interbreed, and we know it's the same species.
One of the arguments that was made in Darwin's time, or shortly after he wrote
the book, was regarding the pepper moths, and this is in every biology textbook in
the country.
Here's proof of evolution.
Now, here's what Darwin saw.
Let's compare the models and see which one fits best.
This is the way it looked before the Industrial Revolution.
The light colored trees hadn't been stained by the soot, and the lighter
colored pepper moths were somewhat camouflaged.
The dark ones stood out.
And so we're told that the birds flying around had black ones for lunch more often
than light ones, and so the numbers changed.
But when the Industrial Revolution took place and stained the trees dark,
then the dark ones were camouflaged, and the light ones stuck out, and now then
there's more light ones.
Now, you've got light and dark before, and you've got light and dark after.
Again, all the change that they're pointing to is a change in the relative
numbers.
But here is what's in the textbook as proof of evolution.
And even that has been grossly misrepresented.
But notice the statement by Matthews, who was honored as one of the greatest
biologists in Europe, chosen to write the introduction to the centennial edition of
Origin of the Species.
He's an evolutionist, and chosen by his peers to have this honor.
And in that introduction he said, the peppered moth, Bischgen Bechelera,
which is the species, experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection,
which has since come to be questioned, as we'll see.
But, or survival of the fittest, in action.
But they do not show evolution in progress.
For however the population may alter, all the moths remain from beginning to
end, Bischgen Bechelera.
It's the same species.
Bischgen Bechelera is still Bischgen Bechelera.
You've got light ones and dark ones before and after.
But you look in the textbooks, and boy, this is the proof.
In fact, in International Wildlife Encyclopedia, we see the statement,
this is the most striking evolutionary change ever witnessed by man.
I think they're right.
I think that's the best you got.
But this is not general evolution by any means.
Not even close.
And since then it has been thoroughly discredited, though not in the textbooks.
In Nature, one of the more respected, perhaps the most respected scientific
journal, back in 1998, this is not really new stuff.
It's had plenty of time to get into the textbooks.
Majerus notes that the most serious problem in that Bischgen Bechelera
probably does not rest on tree trunks.
That's the only place I've ever seen in the textbook.
Exactly two moths have been seen in such a position in more than 40 years of
intensive research.
The natural resting spots are in fact a mystery.
This alone invalidates Kidwell's release-recapture experiments as the moths
were released by placing them directly onto the tree trunks where they're highly
visible to bird predators.
And by placing he means glued.
So you could take the picture, which he goes on to note.
Finally, the results of Kidwell's behavioral experiments were not
replicated, which you're supposed to do to have good science.
In later studies, the moths have no tendency to choose matching backgrounds,
which is what's told in the textbook.
This illustrates at best horizontal variation and it's not a real good
illustration of that.
It's been doctored and glued and misrepresented.
Why do they present this in the textbooks?
Just remember, that's the best they've got.
That's why.
We do have an additional argument that's been added fairly recently that's not what
Darwin saw, but we'll treat it here because it's a similar type argument.
It's the little bitty changes that he imagines will add up to the big ones.
And we've all heard, well, you don't want to take too many antibiotics.
This will evolve this resistant form and here's proof of evolution and that's in
the textbooks now alongside the pepper moths.
Just recently, in the last week, Hillary Rodham Clinton was quoted in the
New York Times saying, I believe in evolution.
Antibiotic resistant bacteria is evidence evolution is going on as we speak.
And she can see that in the textbook.
Now, what are we dealing with?
Do we see evolving bacteria?
They become resistant.
Again, if I'm resistant, you're not.
That doesn't mean we're different species or we've evolved, but with bacteria it
does.
But that's not really what's going on and it's really hindering what we need to be
doing in science in helping us deal with the problem.
We can see that demonstrated very graphically in several instances.
One more most obvious is in a expedition in 1845 where that went awry up in the
Arctic.
They were frozen.
Frozen in Time is the book that describes it.
Here reported in the Medical Tribune back in 88.
Again, not new evidence.
It may be time to rethink our thoughts about the mechanisms for antibiotic
resistance patterns.
Bacteria from the bowels of three members of an 1845 Arctic expedition have survived
140 years.
Now, the bacteria is still there.
140 years.
But now, no antibiotics back then, but we've got the bacteria and they are
showing resistance patterns to modern antibiotics.
It wasn't exposure to antibiotics that produced this.
They were there already.
Current theory suggests that antibiotic resistance is linked to long-term exposure
to antibiotics.
Needless to say, antibiotics were not developed until long after these 19th
century bacteria and their host were buried in the Arctic permafrost.
It's not exposure to antibiotics that causes this.
They're there already.
They're the recessive form, but you kill off the normal form and what's left?
They take over.
And so you're actually losing information.
Reported in Nature in 99, more recently, our results show that resistance to
antibiotics is widespread at least in some wild populations.
The resistant forms in wild populations, even though they have never to our
knowledge been exposed to antibiotics.
And so what we're looking at here is the normal bacteria that dominates.
There are resistant forms, but they're recessive.
But then here comes the antibiotics and it kills the normal form.
They disappear and then what happens?
Well, the resistant form takes over.
And what has evolved?
Has the information content gone up or down?
I mean, we've lost the major form.
It's gone and a small portion of the information now is taken over,
if you approach it from the standpoint of information.
But we've not evolved anything new.
Now, this is a problem that we need to understand.
Now, in both views, we need to be careful about how we use antibiotics.
But if we don't understand what's going on, we're not going to be doing a very
good job of dealing with it.
And it's just propaganda for the textbooks in many instances.
One way to evaluate models is to look at benefits.
Here's a scientific theory.
Has it produced any help, any benefit from it?
And many people will say, well, our evolutionary concepts have caused
science to go forward and you can't have science without it.
I'll notice the comments by Jerry Call, who is professor of evolutionary biology
at the University of Chicago.
And, I mean, this is a fella, if there's benefits there, he should know about it.
He's professor of evolutionary biology, a devout evolutionist.
Truth be told, evolution hasn't yielded many practical or commercial benefits.
Yes, bacteria evolved drug resistance.
Isn't that interesting?
I'm trying to find a benefit here and it's this antibiotic resistance, which is not
true, that he refers to as an example.
But that's the best he can do.
But hasn't evolution, he continues, helped guide animal plant breeding?
Not very much.
Most improvements in crop plants, animals, occurred long before we knew
anything about evolution and came about by people following the genetic principle of
like begets like.
All this plant breeding, we learned all we know about it basically from the
creationists before we knew about evolution.
Where is the benefit?
He doesn't know of any.
The one he points to is not a benefit at all.
Crick, Nobel laureate, co-discovered the structure of DNA, says it might be
thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in
guiding biological research.
This is far from the case.
It's difficult enough to study what's happening now to figure out exactly what
happened.
Evolution is even more difficult.
It doesn't help us in our research.
Where's the benefit?
Well, I'll tell you the lack of benefits, it's butchered generations of people as we
cut out adenoids and we cut out tonsils and we cut out appendix because we're told
this is an evolutionary vestigial organ.
Not knowing that these did produce antibodies and helped us fight infection.
In fact, there was a law in Wisconsin on the books for 40 years that anytime the
abdomen was open you had to remove the appendix.
Why?
Because this evolutionary propaganda.
This is useless.
And now we know better and we just look back and we see butchered people that are
having problems with allergies and all kinds of difficulties in overcoming
infections.
And a lot of it is because they've been butchered by evolutionary theory.
I think there are benefits to creation which has produced the plant breeding
concepts as he pointed out.
Darwin observed, and let's summarize this way, small changes.
And we can see some small changes, not as many as we're pointed to often,
but these small changes we're told will, with great faith, add up to the big
changes.
We don't see it but we believe it.
And we exaggerate what we do see and often misrepresent it, but it's going to add up
to the big one.
Now how do we know?
Well, we have assumed that.
It's not proved.
It's simply assumed.
Well, I think the assumption has been tested.
Well, no, you can't test it because it takes millions of years.
Well, not always.
I think it has been tested and falsified by experiments with organisms that
reproduce very, very rapidly so that you can observe literally, in some cases,
billions of generations in a lifetime.
The fruit fly reproduces every, can reproduce every 20 minutes.
A new generation.
You start multiplying every 20 minutes, you get a lot of generations.
Bacteria sometimes every 20 minutes.
A new generation.
And so, well, the ape to man, you can calculate how many generations ought to
have been involved there and you have many, many, many more times generations
that you can observe with bacteria and with the fruit flies than is even
theorized between ape and man.
And they haven't changed.
They've done some terrible things, these little fruit flies.
I wonder that PETA hadn't gotten after all the scientific experiments where they
torture these poor little things with chemical, mutagenic chemicals and
radiation and they have the highest mutation rate of virtually any organism
and you can make them look pretty weird with big bulging eyes and different
colored eyes and curly wings and straight wings and no wings.
But they're still fruit flies.
It doesn't accumulate or add up to anything.
Michael DeSalle, University of Lyons writing encyclopedia of life sciences,
says, if mutation were a variation of value to the species, then the evolution
of Drosophila should have proceeded with extreme rapidity.
It mutates more than anything and reproduces every two weeks.
Yet the facts entirely contradict the validity of this theoretical deduction.
For we've seen the Drosophila type has been known since the beginning of the
tertiary period, that is about 50 million years.
You know I don't buy the years, but let's play the game their way and see
how it comes out.
If this is true, they've got a very serious problem, or even just in the
period of observation.
It has not been modified in any way, they say, for 50 million years and
certainly not in the hundred years we've been watching them tortured in the college
classrooms.
It ought to add up.
We see the change, these mutations, all kinds of them, but they don't.
We can test it.
Likewise with bacteria.
Wernher Braun, one of the leading experts, probably the leading expert in bacterial
genetics in the US, in his book Bacterial Genetics, says the rapid rate of
propagation, in other words they reproduce every 20 minutes, the enormous size of
attainable populations changes within initially homogeneous bacterial
populations apparently do not progress beyond certain boundaries.
Yes, we see variation, but we see boundaries.
You hear the textbooks talking about variations, you hear the textbook talking
about boundaries?
No way.
It's there, it's just as obvious, and especially with bacteria.
It was just really emphasized in this article from Science News just a few years
ago, as they compared fossil bacteria with live bacteria, virtually identical,
except the fossil bacteria is a little bigger.
What intrigues William Shrupp, paleobiologist, University of California,
LA, most, is a lack of change.
One billion year old fossil blue-green bacteria.
A billion years, every 20 minutes, in a while it will close.
They surprisingly looked exactly like modern species.
Well, you see, you can't observe the changes because it takes millions of
years.
Well, here's millions of years of something that reproduces up to every 20
minutes, and there's nothing.
Not only like modern kinds, as we'd call it, which I think is broader, but exactly
like modern species.
When we look at the finches, when we look at the fruit flies and the bacteria,
perhaps even more definitively, we see variation.
What I would call horizontal variation, not the kind of variation, by the way,
that the evolutionist expects to see.
All of them are harmful or neutral in the normal environment.
There are few that are considered useful in limited environments.
You press the biologist to give you an example of a beneficial mutation,
and he'll say, well, here's sickle cell anemia.
You don't get malaria with it.
Of course, you die.
If you have the two people that both have the form, it's going to produce death,
and we're spending millions of dollars to try to eradicate it.
And the hemoglobin in the blood doesn't absorb oxygen well, and there's all kinds
of problems with it, but you have a little bit of resistance to bacteria,
I mean to malaria.
But that's a beneficial mutation.
All of them degrade complexity.
Some are cyclic.
The environment changes, and then it changes back, and it doesn't accumulate.
None are unlimited in cumulative effect.
None are able to lead to new organs.
Just a mistake in replication doesn't produce a new organ.
So the variation is not the kind the evolutionist is looking for, but that's
not all we see.
In addition, we see boundaries to that variation, and we can give them just
dozens of examples.
I mean, you see little horses that are bred up to big horses, but then they don't
get continuing, you know, 20 feet tall.
You can go down, and you get to a certain level, and then they don't get as small as
rats.
They hit a boundary, and we can see that dramatically and quickly.
This was reported and examined and acknowledged in a very important meeting
in Chicago several years ago, reported in Science.
A historic conference is the way the report began, and again, this is 1980.
This is information that should be in the textbooks.
The central question of the Chicago conference was whether or not the
mechanisms underlying microevolution, the little bitty changes, can be
extrapolated or extended forward to explain the phenomenon of macroevolution,
the big changes.
Do the little ones add up to the big ones?
That's the question.
That's what's in every textbook, biology textbook in the country.
But here's the central question of the conference.
The answer can be given as a clear no.
And then they refer to Francisco Elia, major figure in propounding the modern
synthesis.
That's the modern theory of evolution, synthesizing Darwinian survival of the
fittest with Mendelian genetics.
The modern theory of evolution, he's the one that came up with it,
one of the major figures.
Small changes do not accumulate.
We can demonstrate that in the lab and in the fossil record.
S.
M.
Stanley of Johns Hopkins makes a very reasonable conclusion from that.
He's one of the leading authorities in this field.
He says natural selection, of course that's what's supposed to work on these
small changes that add up to the big ones and that's why they add up, but they don't
add up.
And so what's natural selection got to do with it?
He says this has long been viewed as the process guiding evolutionary change,
but it cannot play a significant role in determining the overall course of
evolution.
Micro evolution is decoupled from macro evolution.
And if the little ones don't add up, what's natural selection got to do with
it?
Stephen Gould of Harvard says, I have been watching it slowly unravel,
and he's talking about this theory that the little ones add up to the big ones,
the mutations are selected by natural selection.
I've been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution.
I've been reluctant to admit it since beguiling is often forever, but that
theory as a general proposition is effectively dead despite its persistence
as textbook orthodoxy.
It's still in the textbooks.
That's how they explain evolution.
The little changes, mutations add up to the big ones acted on by natural
selection.
That's dead, according to the leading authorities.
We know better, both from what we see in the laboratory and what we see in the
fossil record.
Now, there really, as we pointed out in the beginning, only two horses in this
race.
And one of them just dropped dead.
Who do you think is going to win?
When we look at the two models, creation evolution, we see the creation
model, just from the standpoint of what we've just looked at, explains both
variation and boundaries.
We would predict the creator would put within each biotype the capacity to vary,
to adapt to different circumstances.
And these brown rabbits in Texas are not going to fare too well up in the Arctic.
And sometimes they're white ones, and they get to where they do pretty well
up there.
And so you've got white ones, and if you bring them down here, it's going to
change.
You see some variations that's going to help them stay rabbits and succeed.
And we would predict boundaries.
We explain both.
The evolution model explains half.
And the variations that we do see are not the kind of variations they expect to see
that would accumulate, or give benefit, or increase information.
And the idea of them adding up is dead, because we know better.
Can you tell which model works best?
I mean, is that a hard question?
This is the proper scientific approach.
Let's compare what we see, and see which model explains the facts best,
with the fewest secondary assumptions.
And you can make all kinds of extra assumptions, and make this look a little
better over here on the evolution side.
It fits directly, and simply, and obviously best on the creation side.
And therefore, I think that's the best scientific explanation of origins.
We're talking this evening about the laws of science.
And I think there's some clear implications relating to the
creation-evolution controversy, just from the fact that there are laws
that govern the universe.
There are laws that we experiment, we see, we experience here in Texas,
and they operate the same way in China, and as far as we can tell throughout the
universe.
And in what I would consider the golden age of science, when Sir Isaac Newton,
and Kepler, and like this, studied and taught science, made incredible
discoveries and progress from their day.
They considered the laws of science emanating from God, that they were
thinking God's thoughts after him.
That bothers a lot of people today.
Of course, there's still a lot of scientists who think exactly that way.
But men like James Sheehan have difficulty with that concept.
He's editor of the Journal of Geological Education, and he says the concept is
anachronistic.
This concept of laws of science, this is old-fashioned, it's belonging to a
past era, in that it originated at a time when the Almighty was thought to have
established the laws of nature, and to have decreed that nature must obey
them.
And then this fellow who's a scientist says, it is a great pity for the
philosophy of science that the word law was ever introduced.
And that just absolutely amazes me, that someone who considers himself a
scientist thinks that way.
The truth of the matter is, science was born from the concept of believing that
there were laws that we could discover.
There were laws that had been laid down by a Creator that we could repeat and
experiment with and come to know from repeated use.
Prior to that time, it was all magic and demons and mystery, and you couldn't
repeat things, you couldn't explain things.
But once they understood that there were laws that governed the universe that we
could study and discover and repeat, then we can have science.
That's where science came from.
But now then he's recalling from that, because of the implications, if there is
that kind of law of science, maybe there's a law giver, and that doesn't fit his
philosophy.
Albert Einstein would certainly be considered one of the great men of
science, and he certainly believed that there were laws, that it wasn't a pity
that we thought about it in terms of laws.
And he's speaking here about thermodynamics, and we'll talk some about
that this evening.
Don't let the word scare you, this is a concept that I assure you you understand,
though you may not use that terminology.
And he says, this is the only physical theory of universal content concerning
which I am convinced that within the framework of the applicability of its
concepts, it will never be overthrown.
Here are laws that we can depend on.
We talked about what it took last night to become a law and to be proved
scientifically.
This fits all of those criteria perfectly.
There are a number of laws of thermodynamics.
The first one we'll look at basically says you can't create something from nothing.
You didn't know that, did you?
Just out of nothing you don't get anything, do you?
It's sometimes called the law of conservation.
Matter, energy can be interchanged, but neither can be created or ultimately
destroyed.
You burn something up, but it just changes its form to vapor and smoke and so forth.
Isaac Isimov is an atheist, recently deceased.
Someone said he's probably written more books than he's read.
I think that's an overstatement.
Over 600 books, science fiction as well as mainline science.
But one of the leaders in the field, and he's speaking about this concept and
says the law is considered the most powerful, most fundamental generalization
about the universe that scientists have ever been able to make.
This is the one that we have more confidence in.
He says this law is one that no one knows why.
And it is a mystery and it's interesting to talk to scientists when they begin to
speculate about why energy is conserved and they can't break this law.
But he says no one knows why it's conserved.
All that anyone can say is that in over a century and a quarter of careful
measurement, scientists have never been able to point to a definite violation of
energy conservation.
Now that's again what it takes to become a law.
This is true either in the familiar everyday surroundings about us or in the
heavens above or in the atoms within.
Now that's a very broad scope and sometimes people will say well yes but it
doesn't apply to atoms or it doesn't apply to the heavens and even the atheist
acknowledges that it certainly does.
You can't get something out of nothing.
Well how did we get something?
The present concepts of naturalism say that all things came into existence out of
present laws but this most powerful generalization about the universe says you
can't get anything out of nothing and we know from the second law that it's not
eternal.
It all degenerates.
This is the principle of uniformity.
We explain everything in terms of what we see now and yet how can you do that?
That of course is a theory.
We don't know that from a fact and Isimov is wrestling with this conflict.
How do you explain what we have which we know can't be eternal when you can't get
something from nothing if you don't have the supernatural?
Natural law says that won't work.
Well he's wrestling with that when he says perhaps in an infinite sea of
nothingness...
you can imagine that.
It sounds like there's something doesn't it?
Globs of positive and negative energy in equal size pairs are constantly forming.
I think he's already gotten off track from his nothingness there.
After passing through evolutionary changes combining once more and vanishing.
And we are in one of these blobs in the period of time between nothing and nothing
and wondering about it.
And this is supposed to be science when the most fundamental generalization about
the universe is that you cannot do that.
And so here we have this principle of uniformity which he's trying to sustain
that says everything came into existence as a result of present laws and then that
fundamental generalization that says you can't do it.
The principle of conservation.
The second law is just as much actually more confrontational to the concepts of
natural origins.
And the second law basically says things go downhill.
You didn't know that either did you?
We all understand that very well.
It's called the principle of entropy increase.
And scientists like to say things just to make you work at it a little bit.
Entropy is the measure of disorder and so it says basically the system runs down or
wears out and tends toward disorganization which we all understand.
Entropy is the measure of that disorder and so the disorder increases.
That's a backwards way to look at it but that's the concept.
Isimov again is describing this when he says another way of stating the second law
then is the universe is constantly getting more disorderly.
Viewed that way we can see the second law all about us.
We have to work hard to straighten a room.
Left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly, very easily.
Even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty.
And how difficult to maintain our houses and machinery and our own bodies in
working order and how easy to let them deteriorate.
Is this news to anybody?
We don't call it the second law usually of thermodynamics but what we do when we
think of it in that context and we measure it precisely is prove that there are no
exceptions to this.
That this is always the way it works.
He continues describing it saying in fact all we have to do is nothing and
everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down, wears out all by itself and
this is what the second law is all about.
We buy a new house and over the years it gets brighter and shinier and adds new
rooms and gets more ordered.
No, it goes the other way doesn't it?
And sometimes winds up looking like this.
This is what we observe if we watch long enough, isn't it?
But the concept of natural origin says it's going the other way.
It's defined evolution by the Dejonski as a directional process that gives rise to
increase.
Precisely the opposite.
In the book Cosmic Evolution, notice the subtitle, The Rise of Complexity in
Nature.
This is the naturalist description of what's going on.
Eric Chison of Harvard is quoted here on the book cover.
Along an era of time starting at the Big Bang, Chison depicts cosmic evolution in a
wide range of systems.
Particulate, galactic, stellar, planetary, chemical, biological,
cultural.
Over time all these systems be they manifest in worms, human brains,
or microchips become both more complex and more ordered.
Everything in the universe is going uphill.
But the second law that we observe and have tested and have proven says it goes
the other way.
And so we have the theory which says it goes uphill and we have the law that says
it goes downhill.
And they're very much in conflict with each other and which one ought to prevail.
I think that's a fairly easy question unless you have philosophy dominating your
science.
Well when we present this, there's an obvious problem that people see,
but there's an answer that we inevitably get on the college campuses that is
supposed to answer this dilemma.
And that is that the earth is open to the energy of the Sun and we have all of this
energy bathing the earth and with that extra energy you can overpower this
tendency to degeneration.
And of course you can make things go uphill, you make water run uphill with a
pump, engineer energy, you can have the acorn that grows up to the oak tree,
of course it eventually dies and deteriorates, but it is bathed in the
energy of the Sun and you can see that overpowering the tendency to degeneration.
And so the idea is that as long as you have energy then you just forget the law.
Actually there's some that think that and have taught that and it's nonsense.
John Ross of Harvard in chemical engineering news addressed that point
directly when he says ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems.
That's the way it's defined, that's the way you have to make the equations
balanced, you have to deal with it in terms of the closed system, something else
is going to mess up the equation.
But the second law applies equally well to open systems.
I mean the fact you've got the Sun shining on you doesn't mean you're not going to
get old and deteriorate, does it?
Or is that, we know that's not the case with buildings.
Arnold Summerfield, who wrote the book Thermodynamics and Statistical Mechanics,
says the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of
whether the system is isolated or not.
Entropy, the measure of disorder, has to be positive.
Disorder increases, again that backwards approach.
George Gaylord Simpson of Harvard makes, I think, a very common-sense statement in
his introduction to biology when he says the simple expenditure of energy is not
sufficient to develop and maintain order.
Now if you're going to develop and maintain order, make something go uphill,
yes, you have to have energy, but that's a necessary requirement, not a sufficient
requirement, though.
You have to have more than that.
He says a bull in a china shop performs work, but he neither creates nor maintains
organization.
Does that make sense?
The work needed is particular work.
It must follow specifications.
It requires information on how to proceed.
And so not only do you need energy in order to overpower this deterioration,
you need information.
You need particular energy specifying how things proceed.
And that's very obvious when you look at the simple cell.
That's what we're talking about in terms of origins here.
Carl Sagan, certainly not a friend of the creationists, acknowledges that the
information content of the simple cell has been estimated around 10 to the 12th bits.
How much is that?
Comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Now that's a lot of information.
Where did it come from?
It didn't come from the energy of the sun shining down on the earth.
That doesn't produce a hundred million pages of information.
Information itself, like physical systems, deteriorate and go downhill.
And every exchange that we know anything about is going downhill.
With extra information that you add to the system, together with energy, you can make
it go up.
But you can't make it go up if you don't have both energy and information.
We can illustrate that, for example, with mutations, which ironically is
supposed to be the raw material for the upward process of evolution.
But actually it's a degeneration of the information.
As the cell replicates, something gets messed up and all of this hundred million
pages worth of information in the simple cell, something in there is not replicated
perfectly and something goes wrong.
One illustration of that is the Texas blind salamander.
Now it doesn't hurt it that bad since it can't see anyway down in the cave to have
lost its eyes.
But this mutation is not really an upward process, is it?
It's downhill, it's losing information.
I was testifying before the textbook committee in Austin a couple of years ago,
along with Dr. Bishop, who was head of the biology department at the University of
Texas.
And the two of us were speaking to the school board and one of the school board
members asked Dr. Bishop, is there an example of evolution that we can see in
the world today?
You say this is proved, it's a fact, we ought to be able to see it.
He said, well, yes, the blind salamander in Texas.
I said, Dr. Patton, what do you have to say about that?
I said, well, yes, it's changed, but it's lost its eyes.
There's a tremendous amount of genetic information in an eye and he lost it.
This is downhill, not uphill.
Now, if he comes up with headlights down there, then he's evolving.
And so one of the school board members said, well, Dr. Bishop, can you think of a
better example than that salamander that went blind?
And he got mad and got up and lit.
But all of the changes that they point to are like this.
Degenerative.
And they say, well, look, he's adapted.
Well, yeah, but it's a downhill process.
Mutations decrease information.
Richard Dawkins was presented with this dilemma recently and he was asked,
can you think of any kind of a change that is not a decrease in information?
Illustration of this second law.
And it was focused on information.
Would you like to know what he said?
Give me an example of an increase, any kind of a mutation or evolutionary
change that increases information.
But I'd like for you, instead of me just telling you what he said, let me let you
listen.
And we'll listen to the interviewer asking him the question.
Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary
process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?
There's a popular misunderstanding of evolution which says that fish turned into
reptiles and reptiles turned into mammals and so somehow we ought to be able to look
around the world today and look at our ancestors.
We ought to be able to see the intermediates between fish and reptiles
and between reptiles and mammals.
We ought to be able to see fish kind of on the way to becoming reptiles.
But of course that's not the way it is at all.
Fish are modern animals.
They're just as modern as we are.
They're descended from ancestors, which we're descended from.
Way back 300 million years ago, there would have been an ancestor,
which was the ancestor of modern fish and the ancestor of modern humans.
And that ancestor, if you could have been there then, you could have seen the first
steps towards a fish, say, coming out onto the land and becoming something like an
amphibian.
But that was a long time ago.
You wouldn't expect to see that today.
Isn't that brilliant?
I mean, you really got a good example of something that increases information.
I guarantee you he wishes he had a better answer, but that's the best he can do.
He's, of course, had a lot to do with, along with Carl Sagan, the SETI program
here in the United States, which I think very well illustrates the problem.
Billions of dollars being spent looking up into the sky for what?
Some kind of information.
Some kind of a dot, dot, dash, dash that would indicate there's
intelligence out there.
And if we saw this information, that would indicate intelligence in outer
space.
We haven't found it.
Still trying.
But why don't instead we just look down the microscope, as many have, and
recognize what's there.
As he tells us, Sagan tells us, there's a hundred million pages of the
Encyclopedia Britannica.
That's a whole lot more than just a few dots and dashes.
If you walk along the beach, as we pointed out, and you see John loves Mary,
that's enough information to say this is from intelligence.
But they see a hundred million pages of information and, no, that just happened.
That's not intelligence.
But if we saw a few dots and dashes, that would prove intelligent life in outer
space.
Does that make sense to you?
It just shows the power of the prejudice against something besides natural origins.
So, when we talk about this degenerative law, the second law of thermodynamics,
that pervades the universe, the simple explanation, well, it's open to energy of
the sun, provides a necessary requirement to overcome the degenerative process,
but it's not sufficient.
You also need information.
And in that simplest cell, you need an explanation for a hundred million pages
worth of information.
In the simplest cell, we know anything about.
Okay, you got part of the answer, the energy.
Where's the other part of the answer?
Where did the information come from?
I've asked that question on college campuses all over the country,
over and over again, and you know what they say?
You just heard the answer.
They don't have one.
Oh, we got energy from the sun, yes, but that's not really the answer,
is it?
That won't do the trick.
Not only do we see this in the world around us, I think we see evidence of this
degenerative process everywhere we look.
One place the evolutionists wouldn't expect to see it is in the life of the
past, and we'll talk more about that when we speak of the fossil record Friday
evening.
But it is a degenerative process, and while we have all of these little
books that show upward increase of the animals and little horse charts and the
graduated man charts, that's not what you see in the fossil record.
Even Stephen Gould acknowledges this when he says the sweep of anatomical diversity,
all the different forms of anatomy, you've got a maximum right after the
initial diversification of multicellular animals.
In other words, when it starts, that's the way it is.
It's more diverse than it is now.
The later history of life preceded by elimination, not expansion.
It's going downhill.
And it was larger in the past, and we have degenerated.
Now you've read that in your textbook, right?
Don't think so.
But this textbook acknowledges, in this geology text, that mammalian life
was richer in kinds of larger sizes and had a more abundant expression in the
Pliocene than in later times.
And you can find expressions like that in all of the periods.
Let's just look at a few examples that would help demonstrate this point,
beginning with Louis Leakey, who's supposed to be one of the icons of
evolution.
If you saw Gorillas in the Mist, he's the hero of evolution, who really
wasn't, and we'll talk more about that later.
But Time Magazine, a number of years ago, says he was scouring the gorge since 1931.
Over the years, he's unearthed the bones of an ancient pig as big as a rhino.
You've all seen pigs like that?
A six foot tall sheep, flat top skull of a nutcracker man, I think that was a big
ape.
A pig as big as a rhino, or you could make a killing in the bacon business.
This is a picture of one of those pigs from the Dakota School of Mines,
the one on the right is the fossil pig.
And if pigs were this big, how big were the rhinos?
Here's one from India, 20 feet tall.
Back to Louis Leakey's finds, illustrated here in Time Magazine, we see the fossil
ram that was found there in Africa, compared with the modern ram in the
background.
You can see what's happening here, it's going downhill, isn't it?
But of course, man has gotten larger over the years, and we know in the last 50
years that there has been a pretty dramatic increase.
Most biologists would say this is because of our knowledge of nutrition and
vitamins.
We have more to eat and better food to eat.
It's not the kind of change that they're looking for to explain evolution.
There's been about a 6 inch increase on average in the past, well, less than 100
years, actually.
But if you increase 6 inches in 100 years, in 200 years a foot, and in 400 years,
2 feet, and a couple of thousand years ago, we were below zero.
This is much too fast and not the kind of thing they're looking for.
Plus, when we look at the fossil record, we see evidence of large people,
which they don't always tell you about.
This is Turkana boy, found by Lewis's son, Richard.
He was 5'6", but the interesting thing is he was 9 years old, as I can tell from the
teeth.
We probably have some 9 year olds here, but I strongly suspect they're not 5'6".
We have, well, Cro-Magnon man averaged 6'6 in height.
Several, two fossils in Italy found a couple of years ago, over 8 feet.
They were big in the past, not all, but many of them were.
We excavated this donkey from Yerlubbock, Texas, several years ago, 9 feet tall at
the shoulder.
That kind of messes up the little horse charts, doesn't it?
That's not going to work too well, so they leave him out.
In the same area, we excavated a bison with a 12 foot horn span that stood about
11 feet tall at the hump.
You've all seen bisons that tall?
No.
But that's the way it was in the fossil record.
And we see the little armadillos running around.
You can see the normal size one in the foreground here in this page from a
geology textbook.
But notice the writing at the bottom.
This was nine times larger than present day armadillos.
Now, when you see these little graduated horse charts and you see the graduated man
chart that is supposed to give the illusion, everything is getting bigger.
Let me tell you something, you are being lied to.
Because every paleontologist knows the very opposite is true.
Just a few years ago at the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, which I'll be at
next week down in Houston, by the way, their annual meeting, they were talking
about an armadillo that they found.
It was the size of an elephant.
That's the way it was described.
In fact, in 2004, this news release came from the BBC.
Here's a Stone Age elephant twice.
Now, elephants are big today.
But here were elephants twice as big as the largest modern African elephant,
bones of other large animals, rhinoceros.
All of them were bigger.
And here we see at the inset the huge tusk for these elephants that were twice as
large as modern day elephants.
We're looking here at a fossil turtle that looks for all the world like modern
turtles, except this one was 14 feet from one side to the other.
You see many 14 foot turtles running around.
Here compared with a 7 foot basketball player, he is dwarfed.
From down Big Ben, and it's not because it's from Texas, but there is a big
crocodile compared with a modern crocodile here, 50 to 20 feet.
National Geographic had a special that dealt with the large crocodiles that were
seen in the fossil record just a couple of years ago.
And this is typical when you look at the fossil record.
We're looking here in the center at a 14 foot shark jaw.
That's a good size shark, but wow, look at that thing from the fossil record.
Jaws is dwarfed by such.
We see the great white illustrated, that's a pretty good size shark,
but nothing like the fossil sharks.
We have one of the teeth from the large fossil shark back in our artifact room.
Most of us are familiar with our little beavers.
They can be pretty aggravating as they go around chewing on branches, but think how
aggravating it would be if they were 10 feet long, as is the case in the fossil
record.
Again, a page from a geology textbook.
Here we see a picture from the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago of
the 10 foot beaver.
Science reported just a few years ago, a real mighty mouse.
Eight million years ago, the buffalo size rodents roamed in Venezuela.
In fact, Science News reported him as Ratzilla.
Glad they're not around.
This from 2005 in Syria, a camel foot that indicated a camel, according to the BBC,
double the size.
Do you get the point?
I mean, this just goes on and on and on.
This is the way it was.
One of my favorites, here described in Wikipedia, is the demon duck of doom.
Eight feet tall, 500 pounds, carnivorous.
Don't want one of those things after you.
Kind of reminiscent of a movie scene.
That would alarm us, I think.
From Australia, killer kangaroos once roamed Australia.
Science News says they had teeth that crunched through bones, sliced off flesh.
They were enormous.
Why haven't you been told this in your textbooks?
Because it doesn't look like evolution, does it?
It looks like devolution, devolving.
And so they don't tell you about it.
The ground sloths we have today, five or six feet long, but 20 feet long.
And this is what the textbook says.
I've seen them twice that size.
This one is from the Price Museum of Natural History in Utah.
I measured the hand portion.
It was 18 inches.
They just found one down in Argentina.
The hand was twice that size, which would indicate someone twice as big as this one.
One of the more common fossils, especially with dinosaurs, are the
cattails.
We see those in Texas quite often.
How tall are cattails?
I see them in Texas, pretty good size, eight, maybe ten feet.
120 feet tall is not unusual in the fossil record.
You can see the little man for scale here.
You don't see that today, but it's typical in the fossil record.
We're looking here at a modern cycad, a type of fern, here in the Dakota School
of Mines.
I put the quarter up here for scale.
This is their sign.
But we look in the fossil record and hear from the book Fossil Cycads, true cycads
were apparently quite large.
One fossil from Japan is a stem over four feet in diameter.
Today it's like a little maximum 18-inch fern.
Bugs were big.
All the bugs were big.
Most of them are found in the Pennsylvania, and I think that's because
it's not a time era.
It is a swamp area where you find a lot of bugs.
But notice, not a few of them, not some of them, all of them.
This is a beautiful fossil of a dragonfly, 27 inches in wingspan.
Do you get the point?
Just on and on and on.
I excavated a cockroach from near Oblong, Illinois, several years ago, a foot and a
half long.
My wife wouldn't let me bring it in the house.
It's a rock, not a cockroach.
When we look back in the fossil record, obviously we see big things.
When we look at dinosaurs, and these were enormous.
They're seismosaurus, maybe 150 feet long.
There are, well, there is one representative of the beatneck family
that's still around that remains from this group of animals.
Maybe killed off by people that understood what we see when we look at Jurassic Park.
We'd rather not have those things around.
The only representative today is the tuatara from New Zealand.
Same family, he's about eight inches long.
Hadn't evolved a whole lot.
What we see in this whole world around us is not an upward process, but a downhill
process everywhere.
Even in the fossil record.
Now, animals going downhill, is that because of the second law of
thermodynamics?
I'm not sure I can prove that, but it sure smells like it.
Everything else is going downhill, and we certainly see that indicated in the
fossil record.
At least it gives me a chance to combat the picture, the lie that's presented with
these little graduated horse charts, leaving out my nine foot donkey,
and the graduated man chart, leaving out the Turkana boy, and all of the fossils
that are inevitably bigger in the past.
It's all going downhill.
I think it fits a consistent picture.
As we're thinking about laws, we want to concentrate and have on the ones that are
unquestionably laws.
Unlike those things that can't be observed or repeated, that are claimed to be laws
and aren't.
And the point we've tried to make is you see it everywhere.
Certainly in the world around us, we have this from our own experience,
and we see it even in the fossil record, or certainly we see a downhill process.
I think we see it very obviously in the earth itself.
As we look around us rather dramatically, we see erosion taking place.
Is this going uphill or downhill?
It's much more downhill than we realize.
In fact, we spend a good bit of time measuring how much sediment is being
transported by the rivers to the oceans.
You put the little measuring devices in the mouths of the rivers and multiply
times the flow, and you get an idea of how much sediment is being delivered.
27.5 billion tons is being delivered to the ocean by the rivers every year.
Now that number doesn't mean a whole lot, but let's put it this way.
That's enough to fill a freight train that would reach all the way to the moon and
halfway back.
Every year, dumped in the ocean.
Now that's not an uphill process, is it?
It's dumping the continents in the ocean.
Now, there's a lot of mass in the continents, and you can do some pretty
quick, simple calculations to see how long this could go on, and we wouldn't have
continents, and it's not very long.
The earth has been here supposedly 4.5 billion years, and you couldn't do it at
this rate, more than about 14 million.
But, of course, we've still got big continents.
But it couldn't have been going on anything like the age of the earth.
Well, of course, if you move it over here, we're told about the principle of isosity,
and you push down here, and it pumps up over here.
But you can do those calculations and check those simple explanations,
and they don't work.
Sometimes they try to explain it in terms of seafloor spreading, and it accounts for
about one-eighth of the total problem.
It's going downhill, just like everything else.
When we look in the heavens, I think we see one of the most dramatic examples of
this process.
While the evolutionist says everything in the world is going uphill, everything in
the world and the universe around us is doing just the opposite.
You see astronomers, they talk about stellar evolution and galactic evolution,
and everything they talk about is going uphill, when the fact is it's opposite.
You go out on an average night, a good observer can observe about a
hundred of these little shooting stars, we call them.
Little bits of matter that are burning themselves up as they crash into the
atmosphere.
Here is probably something that's come apart in the universe, and now is coming
into the atmosphere and burning itself up.
This is dramatically downhill.
Some of them are very dramatic, as we see them in meteor showers.
This is a linoid meteor shower.
This is one that approached the sun several years ago and came back around
this way, coming apart and then crashing off and into a heavenly body.
Here, like the moon, on our side, on the back side, unprotected from the
earth and its atmosphere, it's just been beat to a pulp.
Again, this is not an uphill process.
Something's come apart, something's crashed in, it no longer is in existence
and we see this on Mercury and we see it on Mars.
We see huge craters and this is evidence of downhill, everywhere we look.
We look up into the sky and we see the beautiful comets.
And here's one, the Hale-Bopp comet, that is coming apart, which is what we see
comets do.
This is the Achaia-Seca comet from a number of years ago, similar to the
SOHO-6, one of the sun grazers.
Notice NASA's description.
A family of comets created by successive break-ups from a single large parent
comet, which passed very near the sun in the 12th century.
This comet, known as SOHO-6, did not survive.
Doesn't sound uphill to me.
Fred Whipple of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, one of the
leading experts on comets in the world, in his book, Mystery of Comets,
says comets tend to split in pieces, particularly when they're near the sun or
Jupiter, but also when they're quite undisturbed in space.
Some comets seem to tire out and die.
Isn't that a surprise?
Here's a picture of one that tired out, died, split into many pieces.
This is the Shoemaker-Levy comet of 94.
NASA provided us a dramatization of what happened.
It crashed into Jupiter, each piece with the force of many megatons of an atomic
bomb, just boom, with huge force, crashing in.
Again, the thing that came apart went downhill and then crashed into the
surface.
Here on Jupiter's moon, Ganymede, we can see this string of craters,
which indicate something came apart and then boom, boom, boom, boom, the parts
crashed one after the other, 13 fragments.
We see this on the moon.
Here is the streak here that indicates this string.
Why are the craters lined up?
Because something has come apart and then the parts crashed.
And it fits the picture that we see everywhere we look in the heavens.
The thing that we see most obviously when we look at the sky is the sun.
We're told that it's dissipating 4.5 million tons per minute in thermonuclear
reactions.
We do know it's, figuratively, burning up, dissipating energy out through
space.
Not only through the normal stellar processes, but through the prominences and
flares that you see blasting out on the side.
Here is a huge one, blasted out, compared in mass to the earth.
Huge!
4.5 million tons per minute and then boom, other things like this.
In addition to that, the solar wind dissipates another million tons per
minute.
And so we've got at least 5.5 million tons per minute.
That's not helping it a whole lot.
Now there's a lot of mass there and it's not going to go out tomorrow.
But it's a downhill process and pretty dramatically downhill.
Now then, multiply that times what you see when you look out in the sky.
Most of what you're seeing out there is stars.
Billions and billions of stars that are dissipating millions of tons per minute.
What's going on in the universe?
It's dramatically going downhill.
And that's with just the normal stellar processes.
When we look at things like the planetary nebula, beautiful fireworks in the sky.
Here's a star that just blew up 10-30% of its mass, blasted into an outer shell.
From a dying sun-like star producing the planetary nebula known as the helix.
Here's another beautiful planetary nebula.
Boom!
Like God's fireworks.
But it's not an uphill process when something blows up and leaves this spray
of sparks.
Is that uphill or downhill?
Some of them are just spectacular and even symmetrical as they blast themselves out
of existence.
This dying star throws off shells of glowing gas.
Here the radiation floods out in the surrounding gas causing it to fluoresce.
And when we see these glowing gases, sometimes we're told, well look,
it's heating up and condensing.
Now what's happening?
It's blasted out and the shock of the blast excites the particles like we see in
the fluorescent lights here and causes them to fluoresce.
It's an indication of an explosion.
And here NASA says this radiation floods out in the surrounding gas causing it to
fluoresce.
Over the next several thousand years the nebula will gradually disperse into space
and the star will cool and fade away.
That's what we see.
But the planetary nebula are just kind of pitiful compared to the novas and the
supernovas.
Which not just blasting 30% of the mass but completely blast themselves out of
existence.
This is one of the last ones that we saw in 1987.
And we see in the inset the way the star looked one night and then beside it the
way it looked the next night.
Tens of thousands of times brighter overnight.
Now that, I mean, the normal star is like the Sun, 4.5, 5 million tons per minute.
And then 10,000 times more than that as it blasts itself out of existence.
We see the remnants of some of those explosions here in one of them in the Crab
Nebula.
As NASA said, this is the mess that's left when a star explodes.
It's beautiful.
This one happened to be observed.
A number of cultures observed and recorded this explosion that took place in 1054.
And we know of the Chinese and the Arabs, the Native Americans, possibly two others.
But these recorded it and saw it.
So we know what's going on here.
And we've got glowing gases.
Maybe it's coming together?
No.
It's blowing up.
A number of these supernova remnants are seen.
This is a spectacular one.
Blinding flash, which the concentrated power equals that of 10 quadrillion suns.
I mean, the Sun is deteriorative, degenerative.
10 quadrillion suns.
How do you get an uphill process when everything you see is just not only
degenerative, but dramatically degenerative?
Here's the description of NASA.
This is N49's cosmic blast.
Scattered debris from a cosmic supernova, an explosion, lights up the sky just like
fireworks.
We can get some predictions and maybe some ideas about how long this has been going
on from the fact that these supernova remnants appear about once every 25 years
in our galaxy.
And we're not sure why, but it's pretty regular.
And over the past 100 years, we've seen this happen.
Actually, further back than that, of course, 1054 gives us a pretty good
range of observation.
This is the conclusion, and I don't know of anyone that argues with it.
That's what is indicated.
Well, if it's one per 25 years, we can see immediately how many we ought
to be able to observe if it's this old or if it's that old.
We can make some predictions, which is the way science tests models.
If we're looking at a million years, then we ought to be able to see 40,000 of
these things, one every 25 years.
Pretty simple.
Well, no, because some of them are behind gas clouds and some of them are nearer.
Novas that get dissipated when it blows up.
So we grant every possible exception and even exaggerate it a little bit.
And they'll say, well, you still, maybe not 40,000, you ought to be able to
see over 7,000.
Okay.
But what if we're looking at only 7,000 years?
Well, that's a very different picture.
We would predict one every 25 years, 280, maybe some of them we couldn't find
behind gas clouds, something like 270.
Very different predictions.
7,000, less than 300.
Which one fits the facts best?
What do we actually observe, which is what science is about?
So far, we've been able to find 260.
Isn't that interesting?
But we see when we look at the news and we look at the propaganda that we're
inundated with, articles like this.
This is from USA Today.
Hubble telescope captures the birth of a star.
Boom!
Here came a star.
Well, you read the article and say, well, it actually takes well over 100,000
years for this to happen.
And, okay, well, nobody saw it last night.
Which is the impression you get when you look at the headline.
And we're not seeing it happen.
We're seeing things that they say infer that it's happening.
Or at least that's the impression they like to leave you.
The experts will tell a different story.
Here from Science Magazine, 1990, we have yet to directly observe the
process of stellar formation.
Nobody has seen that, in spite of these misleading headlines.
But we're pointed here in Discover Magazine to the stellar nurseries.
Like, every night we see new stars popping out.
And, of course, we should.
You calculate how many are out there, you ought to be able to see them forming.
Because they're just a mind-boggling amount.
We're pointed to the Orion Nebula.
Spectacular.
Glowing gases.
Shocked from an explosion.
But here's a nursery.
Here's where they're just popping into existence.
Or should be.
We hadn't observed it, but this is where it's happening.
Just trust us.
Here's what NASA calls a star factory.
Why?
Well, we've got glowing gases.
Oh.
Well, here we've got glowing gases.
Yeah, but now we saw this explode in 1054.
We know what this is.
And so when we see this, that can't be...
We've got to explain it somehow.
And all we can see is glowing gases.
And when we know how the glowing gases got there, we know it's not star formation.
It's blowing up of a star.
J.C.
Brandet addresses the problem in his book, Sun and Stars.
He says, contemporary opinion on star formation holds that objects called
protostars are formed as condensations from stellar gases.
Okay, you turn loose gas from an aerosol can in this room and the gas just comes
together in a little ball up here, doesn't it?
Or does it?
What happens?
It doesn't condense.
It spreads out.
I mean, we know that.
You see the smoke from the campfire come up and it doesn't gather together in a
little ball.
It spreads out and dissipates.
But here they are imagining that it condenses.
Well, the second law says things are going to get more disordered.
It's not going to get more ordered.
He goes on to say this condensation process is very difficult theoretically.
In other words, we can't make it work on paper.
No essential theoretical understanding can be claimed.
In fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star
formation.
And, of course, it's not theoretical.
It's the second law of thermodynamics that says it ain't going to happen.
Oh, but you've got gravity that attracts.
Yes, and you start compressing gases and what happens?
It heats up and it pushes back, doesn't it?
You've got expansive forces as well as the attractive forces and you can measure both
of them.
The expansive forces are 60 times greater.
And so it's going to come together.
Not when the expansive forces are 60 times greater.
Yeah, well, I know gravity works and there's an attraction, but measure the two
and see which one's going to win.
Very powerful evidence argues against this.
And while it'll tell you in your earth science textbooks, we know exactly how
this happens, the authorities know better.
Here, Abraham Loeb for the Harvard Center of Astrophysics, the truth is we don't
understand star formation at a fundamental level.
Now, if you're an earth science teacher in high school, you can tell folks we know.
But if you're head of the Harvard Center for Astrophysics, you have to admit,
no, we don't have a clue.
And I think we know which one is more dependable.
Here's another reference from Science 2002.
Stars are among the most fundamental building blocks in the universe and yet
the processes by which they're formed are not understood.
So don't let the teachers fool you.
How do you get gas which spreads out to come together?
And they don't know.
Godfrey Burnbridge, a more frank, very leading authority in our nation on
astronomy, says, he's director of the Kitt Peak National Observatory, if stars did
not exist, it'd be very easy to prove this is what we expect.
They're burning up, they're burning up in quotes, they're dissipating energy,
it's all going downhill and it's been going on billions of years, there ought
not to be any.
How do you get them together?
Well, you can't in terms of what we know today.
All of the authorities that I'm quoting are atheists, they're naturalists.
I want to make an exception and refer you to the statement by Dr. George Mulfinger.
He recently deceased, but had a PhD in astronomy from Syracuse, but was a
creationist, and I want to make that distinction.
And of course, he referred to the fact that one of the problems is that it's
unscriptural.
Genesis 2.1 says, all the hosts were finished, all the stars and the host of
them were finished when God created.
Really, there are only three problems, he says, regarding star formation.
The first is it's unscriptural, and the second is it's never been
observed, and the third is it's theoretically impossible.
But aside from those three problems, he says, it's a real winner.
Which I think is a pretty good analysis.
But even those who are atheists say very similar things.
We've been talking about stars.
Let's multiply the problems in forming stars by hundreds of billions of times,
and we see the problem we have explaining galaxies.
Which not only have the problem of forming the stars in them, but forming the
organization, the collectivity of stars.
How did they get together?
When the second law says everything goes the other way.
Martin Rees, astrophysicist, writing in the Dallas Morning News a few years ago,
says, the most basic questions about galaxies are still not understood.
If galaxies didn't exist, we'd have no problem explaining that fact.
That sound familiar?
And like a refrain.
It's not supposed to be coming together, not naturally.
And we see beautiful formations up here, these pinwheel spirals, like M51.
This forms when the center part turns faster than the outer part.
Like the ice skater pulls in their arms and spins faster and slows down when the
arms of these galaxies act like that.
The spiral-shaped wave patterns from the galaxy's center whirl around the core
three times as often as those 6,000 light years out, says the team.
All but guarantees the galaxy's bright inner pinwheel is destined to wind itself
up.
And it doesn't take many turns to just completely wind itself up into this
amorphous disk.
Not like the spiral arm disk.
Well, how fast is it winding itself up?
Well, it's pretty fast.
Just a few hundred thousand years.
Not the 20 billion or 15 or 13 billion that they propose for the age of the
universe.
It looks like it hadn't turned more than once or twice.
Just a few hundred thousand years is the most you can get for this.
And what really gets difficult is when you look at what's called the barge spiral.
And here's this straight bar right across the middle.
And it hasn't twisted at all.
Just half a turn and that'd be messed up.
And that would take just thousands of years.
And there it is.
And why in the world do we have bars in the middle of these spirals like this?
I think it may be that the Lord is just looking down and saying,
na-na-na-na-na-na.
You can't explain this.
Because just in a short period of time it would be destroyed.
But it wouldn't be like that.
When we have seen more through the Hubble telescope, it's been anticipated.
Now we're going to explain natural origins.
But the further we look, the more difficult it's gotten.
Here reported in the Dallas Morning News, astronomers at the Space Telescope Science
Institute released the deepest ever view of the universe.
Long duration exposure reached out to a point just a few million years from the
Big Bang.
Look way out to just right.
We can almost see the beginning out there.
And what do we see?
A wide range of galaxies.
We don't see baby galaxies.
We don't see forming galaxies.
We see completely mature sizes, shapes, and colors.
Everything that you see everywhere else.
Looking back to the beginning, you should see it gradually forming.
Not at all what we see.
This was reported by Gemini Observatory showing how this should have developed
theoretically from the little baby galaxies, the little seeds, finally to the
more mature galaxies that we see with the spiral arms and pointed out that,
well, here's the headlines.
The faintest spectra ever raised glaring questions.
Why do galaxies in the universe appear so mature?
It's massive and mature right back to what they call the beginning.
Richard Cowan, University of California, Davis, comments on this.
He says galaxy formation theory is in peril.
Over the past 18 months, several teams have found so many massive galaxies from
this early epoch that the theory is being stretched to the breaking point,
several astronomers say.
In other words, we can't explain this.
It just flies in the face of what we predict.
Notice the comments of James Treffle, who is a professor of physics at George
Mason University, one of the more famous astronomers in the country.
He says, it seems the more we learn about the basic laws of nature, and he's not
talking here about Sunday school literature, it's the basic laws of nature,
what we're talking about tonight, the more those laws seem to tell us the
visible matter, the stuff we see, shouldn't be arranged the way it is.
That is, if it's old.
That is, if you're trying to do it naturally.
You can't do it that way.
It doesn't work.
The stuff we can see shouldn't be arranged the way it is.
There shouldn't be galaxies out there at all.
There shouldn't be stars out there in the galaxy.
On top of that, if there are galaxies, they shouldn't be grouped together.
Stars are a problem.
Groups of stars and galaxies are a problem.
Now we've got groups of galaxies.
Just multiply the multiplication.
Galaxy clusters, the Hercules cluster of galaxies, organized.
It just multiplies beyond our imagination, the problem of trying to explain it
naturally.
We hear a lot about this solar system, and especially in the earth science
textbooks, they say it's all condensed from the nebular cloud.
Here's the dust, and it's spun around, and it is condensed into these planets
with the sun in the middle.
Not a very good fairy tale, which is about the best you can say about it.
All kinds of problems.
First, the sun has 99% of the mass, where the planets have 99% of the angular
momentum.
Now if you're a physicist, you understand.
This is all condensing out of the same cloud, and here's the mass, and it's not
moving very fast, but these things out here that have virtually none of the mass
are just going up a storm relative to the sun.
How did they get going so fast, when the great mass is just plodding
along?
That's not going to work.
This has a slow spin.
The planets have rapid orbital motion, which is not going to condense naturally
out of a cloud.
Sir Jeffreys of Cambridge says, I think all the suggested accounts of the
origin of the solar system are subject to serious objections.
The conclusion in the present state of the subject would be the system cannot exist.
That is, naturally.
If it's been there for a long time.
And again, there's another refrain.
More recently, 2007, just a couple of months ago, this is fairly up to date.
And they're talking about planet formation theories.
And what they find when they put this on the computers is, okay, you get some
boulders and some rocks here.
They're supposed to come together to form a planet.
And what happens?
The boulder goes right to the sun.
This planet formation theory has been a stumbling block for 30 years.
Which, of course, you've read about in your earth science textbook.
No.
The reason is that boulders tend to fall into the star in a celestial blink of an
eye.
There are enough uncertainties that planet formation is not going to be an open and
shut case any time soon.
He said, we don't know how that collapse into a planet actually occurs.
In spite of the fact your earth science textbook tells you just that happened.
It just condensed out of the cloud.
No, we don't know.
And when we try to explain it, we fall flat on our face.
Same thing is true with the moon.
And we could spend a whole evening talking about the problems there.
But here, from nature, many models have been proposed for the formation of the
moon.
No one has succeeded in showing how the formation had formed successfully.
Jack Lissiter, with the NASA space program, says, all in all, developing a
theory of lunar origins that makes sense of the data proved very difficult.
The best explanation was observational error.
The moon did not exist.
One of the ways to test a model is to see how the predictions take place.
If stars didn't exist, that's what we'd expect.
There shouldn't be galaxies.
They shouldn't be grouped together.
The solar system shouldn't exist.
The best explanation is the moon didn't exist.
But you read the textbook and it's like, we can explain it all.
What can they explain?
It all flies in the face of their naturalistic explanation.
The basic laws of nature say it will not work.
And so when we back off and look at the two models, and we see the obvious
prediction of degeneration and decay by the creationists as defined by what we
read in Genesis.
Degeneration, decay, imposed as a consequence of sin.
All right, let's test that against what we see and see what fits.
That's what we see.
The evolution model says things are going to go uphill.
And they have great faith in everything from microchips to brains.
It's all going uphill.
But what do we see in the world we live in?
Your own experience with your houses and your cars and bodies.
Is it going uphill or downhill?
Well, we know that.
When we look at the life of the past, we see dramatically things were bigger and
now then they have gone downhill, which they don't like to admit.
But it's just as obvious as it can be.
When we look at the universe around us, when we look at the sky, we see everything
from stars to the face of the planets to the comets to the planetary nebula,
the stars blowing themselves out of existence, galaxies.
Everything is going downhill.
That's not what they predict.
Now, just be honest.
Which model explains what we see best?
I don't think it's a hard question if the person is honest.
Let's think before we conclude about some implications of this and allow Isaac
Asimov to acknowledge what he sees as a real problem.
He says, as far as we know, all changes are in the direction of increasing
entropy, increasing disorder, or increasing running down, randomness.
Yet, the universe was once in a position from which it could run down.
Now, the natural processes, everything we see, say it goes downhill.
How did it get up?
It had to be up from which it could run down, but natural processes say you don't
go that way, it goes this way.
How did it get into that position?
You see, the second law of thermodynamics says there had to have been something
besides the natural processes we see to explain what we're looking at.
And there's no way around that.
H.J.
Lipsom is an atheist, writing in Physics Bulletin, but faces the issue squarely.
He says, I think, however, we should go further than this and admit the only
accepted explanation is creation.
I know this is anathema to physicists, as it is to me, but we must not reject a
theory we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.
And it's not, again, the Sunday school lesson that's telling...
This is the laws of science that govern this universe, and it says you can't do it
naturally, it doesn't work, you can't explain anything that you see in the
universe around us.
And it certainly doesn't fit the picture that we see on this earth.
The experimental evidence says, obviously, the creation model works
better.
I want to conclude with a statement by two very brave men.
They are creationists, but they're the authors of the textbook that's used in
virtually every undergraduate of dynamics in the country.
Every university in the state of Texas that I've been able to check, and that's
most of them, use their textbook.
Now, people will say, maybe you're a hard-rotten geologist, archaeologist,
what do you know about thermodynamics?
Well, I may not know a whole lot, but these fellows do.
They wrote the book.
We see the second law of thermodynamics as a description of the prior and continuing
work of a creator.
Naturally, you cannot get it here where it can then be seen to be going down as we do
now.
You can't.
And so that second law that says everything goes down says natural law is
not going to account for this.
You've got to have something beyond the natural in order to see what we're seeing
and see things go downhill.
It also holds the answer to our future destiny and that of the universe.
It's going down to destruction.
And that's clearly implied from the laws of nature, from these fellows who really
know what they're talking about.
I think that is a powerful bit of evidence and should be obvious to people who are
willing to look.
I'm convinced that the subject of the age of the earth is one of the most critical
issues in the creation-evolution controversy.
I'm a little disturbed with some of my brethren who say it doesn't make any
difference.
I think that's rather naive.
I think we can show both from scripture and from science that the best and most
reasonable explanation is that the earth is young in spite of the propaganda that
we hear continually from the media.
I believe science indicates that the earth is not old.
But of course there are a great many scientists who believe that the earth is
billions of years old, certainly not all scientists by any means.
And there are a significant number who believe the scientific evidence is against
this conclusion.
But to get an idea of the role that this issue plays in the minds of the
naturalist, notice the statement by Loris Badash, professor of history of science,
University of California, Santa Barbara.
And he refers to the general conclusion of many.
4.5 billion years ago, the primal earth emerged from a spinning turbulent cloud of
gas, dust, planetoids that surrounded the new star.
On these figures for the age of the earth rests all of geology and evolution.
This is the foundation.
Well, I think it's a pretty shaky foundation and perhaps before we finish
this evening you can see why I believe that.
But it's absolutely critical, obviously, to the evolutionists that the earth be
billions of years old.
If it isn't, then we can all go home.
There's no time for evolution.
But it's more than just necessary for evolution.
It is necessary to solve all of his problems.
And this is basically the way he looks at time.
It's the solution to any and every problem that comes up.
Consider the statement by George Wall, who is a Nobel laureate from Harvard.
He's talking about the origin of life.
And as he sees the complexity that we've learned about, it just boggles his mind
and says, we can't imagine how this could happen naturally.
And that's a necessary conclusion and one that many naturalists will agree with.
He says one only has to contemplate the magnitude of this task, that is,
getting the cell to start all by itself, to concede that the spontaneous generation
of a living organism is impossible.
Well, how does he solve that problem?
Yet, here we are, as a result, I believe, a spontaneous generation.
It's impossible, but he believes it, because he's got time.
However improbable we regard this event, or any of the steps which it involves,
given enough time, it will almost certainly happen at least once.
Now, as we looked last night at the implications of time, things tend to go
uphill or downhill.
Time doesn't help in trying to get things organized and more complex.
Time does the opposite, in our experience.
But the faith of the evolutionist says it'll solve all the problems.
Time is, in fact, the hero of the plot.
Given so much time, the impossible becomes possible.
The possible probable, the probable virtually certain, one has only to wait,
and time itself performs the miracles.
Now, here's the Holy Spirit of the evolutionist.
You just wave the magic wand and all the problems disappear, because of time,
in spite of what we learned last night, about time causing things to go downhill.
We're reminded of the fairy tale, of the princess that kisses the frog,
and then turns into a prince, and of course that's a fairy tale, we understand,
unless you add the magic kiss of time, and then it's science.
Over billions of years, this is exactly what happens.
And that's what our universities are spending billions of dollars to teach,
that yes, the frog turns into the prince, the only difference between it and the
fairy tale, is time.
And I don't think time has that property, that power, that miracle working
capability.
I think one of the best ways to approach issues in science, is to ask why
questions, and I think that's especially appropriate here.
People are just absolutely inundated with affirmation after affirmation,
like a mantra that the earth is billions of years old, well, why do you believe
that?
I think is a good question.
And of course it is a matter of faith, nobody was there at the beginning.
They believe that the earth is old, and my question is why?
Well, usually the first response that we get to that question, involves radiometric
dating, because they've dated the rock, the rock is a million, it's a billion,
or two billion, four billion years old, they don't date them that old,
but three billion sometimes.
And obviously the earth has to be at least that old, and of course we all understand
exactly how this radiometric system works, so that we can evaluate the validity.
No, we don't have a clue how it works, do we?
And most of the scientists don't, believe it or not.
We just have faith, because they tell us it works.
We announced the subject of radioactive dating, not too long ago, for some
teenagers, and I think they got the wrong impression.
Generally radioactive material is material that emits particles from the nucleus of
the atom, it's not stable, and through the loss of alpha and beta particles decays
into different elements, and finally winds up as a stable element, and this decay
process is supposed to allow us to tell time, something like an hourglass.
You begin with an hour's worth of material at the top, it decays down in an hour's
time to what's at the bottom, and so this is the way you can tell time.
Now, as you look at uranium, it loses some of its 238 particles, becoming other
minerals, coming finally to be lead, which is stable.
There's natural lead and radiogenic lead, but this is what's produced as a result of
the decay process, and then you use the equation that you see here to reach the
conclusion about the number of years.
What could go wrong with this kind of a process?
Well, let's first look at the hourglass and just say how much time has transpired
here, ignoring the uranium and lead for a second, if we're looking at a regular
hourglass.
How much time?
Well, we can look at that and we can say maybe 15 minutes, maybe 20 minutes,
and if we could count the grains of sand, we could come up with a very accurate
conclusion about how much time had transpired, assuming that the rate is
constant.
But what would go wrong?
What could possibly be wrong with that conclusion?
Suppose just before you looked at the hourglass, somebody raised the top and
dumped in a lot of extra sand, and virtually all of the hour's worth of
sand had already run to the bottom.
Now it looks like it hasn't, and it's been going for 58 minutes, but now it looks
like that's not the case.
Or suppose someone lowered the lid and let out most of what had already run down.
Or suppose it were basically like this, laying on its side, and it had been going
two seconds, when somebody set it up and now said, look at it.
You have to know the beginning conditions, and you have to know that it's a closed
system, that nothing leaked in or leaked out, or you're not really telling time.
And these are the basic problems by analogy.
Now it's a rather crude analogy, but gives us an idea of what we're talking
about.
Notice Henry Fall's statement, one of the leading authorities in this
field.
He says, two important assumptions are implicit in this equation, the one we
looked at just a moment ago.
First, that we're dealing with a closed system.
Nothing leaked in, nothing leaked out.
Second, that no atoms of the daughter, that's what's produced at the bottom,
were present in the system when it formed.
And non-radiogenic lead occurs throughout nature.
These assumptions furnish the most serious limitations on the accumulation clock.
Now this is not the creationist, this is the evolutionist saying this is a
serious problem.
He continues saying rigorously closed systems probably do not exist in nature.
But surprisingly many rocks and minerals satisfy the requirements well enough to be
useful for nuclear age determination.
The problem is one of judicious geologic selection.
And so this is not an objective process.
You date the rock and you get an age.
You know most rocks really don't fit the purpose and you just judiciously select
the one that's going to work for you.
J.D.
McDougall is writing in Scientific American saying that this process involves
rocks where you have minerals leaking in constantly.
Groundwater percolation can leach away the proportion of uranium present in the rock
crystals.
And the mobility of the uranium is such that as one part of the rock is being
impoverished, another part can become abnormally enriched at relatively low
temperatures.
And when this is going on you're adding sand to the hourglass or you're taking
away sand from the hourglass and what does that do to the time telling mechanism?
It's just really messing it up.
You can't tell time that way.
We see things that become fossilized, that become petrified.
How does this happen?
Water percolates down through the rocks and it leaches out some material,
it replaces it with other material and this is not that unusual.
And that's going on in rocks all the time, especially if you're looking at billions
or millions or thousands of years.
Miger of East Carolina University really gets down to how it works writing in
Contributions to Geology when he says in general, dates in the correct ballpark are
assumed to be correct and are published.
If it comes out, quote, right.
And by the way, if you send in a sample to a lab, they're not going to date it unless
you tell them where it came from, how old it's supposed to be.
They don't take the test unless you give them the answer.
And that's not the way I used to take tests.
All you have to do is log on the websites, look at the form where you submit the
samples and see this is what you have to tell them.
And I guarantee you they don't do it.
There may be one or two, but they're not the reputable labs.
Continuing, he says those in disagreement.
If they're in agreement, they're published.
If they're in disagreement with the other data, they're seldom published,
nor are the discrepancies fully explained.
They don't even try.
They just chuck it.
Now that sounds rather cynical and surely scientific people can't do it that way.
Well, let's allow the evolutionist himself to describe exactly what's happened.
One of the more famous examples of dating involves the 1470 skull by Richard Leakey
and Roger Lewin is editor of Research News and Science, one of, if not the most
prestigious science journal in the United States.
He is a good friend of Richard Leakey's.
They've written a couple of books together.
And he's describing how the dating of this took place.
And really there's a couple of chapters in his book, Bones of Contention,
which is a pretty interesting book.
He, of course, believes in the billions of years and is a devout evolutionist.
But historically you've got a pretty good record of what happened in the search for
fossil man.
The calculated age was quickly refined to be 2.61 plus or minus 0.26 million years.
Okay, 1470 skull.
2.61 plus or minus 0.26 million years.
Which to the anthropologist unfamiliar with the procedures of radiometric dating
has a ring of comforting precision about it.
Even the anthropologists, I mean you don't feel bad, they don't really understand how
it works either.
And this sounds very comforting.
But, let's look at the rest of the story.
There were 41 separate age determinations which varied between 223 million and less
than 1 million.
Now that's a huge range.
41 different tests and it's all over the place.
And they never, after the first determination, never again obtained 2.61
from their experience.
They got it 1 out of 41.
And chucked the 40 and kept the 1.
Now, that's not my description.
This is Leakey's best friend.
Editor of Research News and Science.
This is the way it works.
You just keep chucking until you get what you want.
Now, how scientific is that?
This is a game that's played to verify what you already believe.
If it doesn't, you chuck it and you keep playing.
Let me give you some more illustrations.
This is a cross-section of the Grand Canyon.
We've done some research here.
I say we, myself, with several others.
Mainly others in this area, but we work together.
As we look at this cross-section of the canyon, we can determine that some rocks
ought to be older.
Certainly, if the evolutionary picture is correct, the ones down at the bottom ought
to be older than the ones up at the top.
The U.N.
Carrot Basalt has come out of what appear to be modern volcanoes.
Some have suggested the American Indians saw these eruptions take place.
They float over the edge of the canyon, down into and damming up some of the
lowest parts of the canyon.
This would be the youngest rock there.
Interestingly, the same type of rock is found down in the inner gorge,
underneath the sedimentary layers, down in the igneous rock in the inner part
of the gorge.
But it's the same kind of rock, Cardenas Basalt, which ought to be older.
Well, it's obvious which should be older.
Let's send these rocks to the lab and see how this works out.
There are about 20 different radiometric methods, but some of them would be more
appropriate for this type of rock.
Here we use several different methods to date the U.N.
Carrot Basalt.
Six potassium-argon model ages were run.
And the range was from .01 all the way to 17 million, which is a pretty good range
in itself in this one lab.
The rubidium strontium came out 1270 to 1390.
The lead-lead isochron, supposed to be the most accurate, came out better than two
and a half billion, which is a whole lot more than the 17 million, which was the
oldest potassium-argon age.
Now this is the same rock.
Different methods on the same rock.
Now you're told over and over again that we test and the different ages come out
and they are concordant and they verify one another and this is the way we check
and we know it's right because they all agree.
If you chuck 40 and pick the one and then you're able to do that with the others,
maybe you can come out with something that looks concordant, but this is the real
experience that we had with the Cardenas basalts.
Let's see how that came out.
Similar methods used and again that's all over the place from 853 million to a
billion.
Huge range.
Again, all from the same rock, just using different methods.
But we compare the oldest rock from the Ewing Carriot Plateau that flowed over the
edge and dammed up the lowest part of the canyon and it's two and a half billion
whereas the oldest age for the oldest rock is just barely a billion.
It's less than half as old as what flowed over the top of the canyon.
Now, how is it that you got the lower younger?
It ought to be much...
Sometimes when you can test and know at least relatively speaking what ought to be
and when you do, I'm sorry, it doesn't work unless you do a lot of checking which
is done as we have demonstrated from the evolutionist himself.
We decided to do some work at Mount St. Helens.
This is a picture of the caldera.
The center portion is of known age.
This is from 1986.
The eruption was 1980 but six years later is where most of this was extruded.
We took five samples from the caldera, different parts of it and sent it to the
lab.
Here's the rot.
You date it.
Tell me the age.
Well, the answer came back looking like this in millions of years.
And the rot was actually 11 years old.
And people would say, well, ok it was not dating when the rot formed but rot that
was already mixed together as lava and that's of course exactly right.
The assumption of the potassium-argon dating which was being used here is that
when it flows as lava all of the argon escapes and when it then congeals into
rock that's when the clock starts.
And you're dating the time when it became hard as rock.
Sorry, it doesn't all escape.
There's still plenty of argon there.
It doesn't work and gives absolutely absurd results.
This is not unusual.
And if you're checking 40 out of 41 then I think you get the picture.
Radiocarbon dating is the one that we hear a good deal about.
It's not nearly as significant for evolution because it covers a much shorter
period of time and works somewhat differently.
It covers a period of less than 100,000 years probably more like 60 to 70,000
which I think is significant when we're talking about the age of the earth from
the biblical perspective but not the billions necessary for evolution.
Robert Lee is commenting on, I think, rather objectively, the problems that have
become obvious in recent years.
He said the troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and
serious.
Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding the
underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged.
Now this is not just something leaks in or leaks out.
This is not just contamination.
The underlying assumptions have been challenged.
It forms in the upper atmosphere.
The assumption is that there is the same amount relative to carbon-12 that there
has been for thousands of years for the time that it's being tested.
We have found that's not the case.
It is, that is, the carbon-14 is increasing.
It's not staying the same.
Libby in his original work said it would only take 30,000 years to reach this state
of equilibrium and it's not there which is interesting.
But he continues saying it should be no surprise then that fully half of the dates
are rejected.
That's, I think, overstating his case.
He is, of course, a believer in this and uses it.
I have a friend who runs the carbon dating lab at Ball State University.
He's a brother.
We differ on the age of the earth.
And we were discussing this, I think, in a brotherly way.
And I was visiting him there at the lab and he was dating a peat bog with the
carbon-14 lab that he had and he had checked the first 19.
He was on the 20th date.
He knew it was 20,000 years old.
Most of them had come out 4,000 and 5,000.
Therefore, it proved that it was contaminated with recent material,
so he's going to get a good one yet.
But he's checked everything he's gotten so far.
19 out of 19.
And so when he says half the dates are rejected I think he's understating the
situation.
He continues to say there are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven
and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.
Now, I submit to you this is not science.
This is a game that's being played in order to make people look like they know
what they're doing.
To verify prior conclusions.
Even W.E.B.
Stanfield who is a vicious anti-creationist writing in his book
Science of Evolution it is obvious, and this is after we had presented some of
this material, that the radiometric technique may not be the absolute dating
methods they claim to be.
And I think that's for obvious reasons.
I think one of the best ways to approach this is to look at what might be called
the proof of the pudding type arguments.
Let's look at situations where we should be able to tell, at least relatively,
Grand Canyon would fit into that category.
This is from the Glen Rose Limestone not too far from here.
This is supposed to be 110 million, middle Cretaceous.
Well, a friend of mine, an associate sent this to the UCLA Carbon Dating Lab without
being completely straightforward about where it came from.
It came back dated 890 years old, from 110 million year old limestone.
About 50 yards away there was a carbonized stick in the same layer, and so he sent
some of this to the same lab.
It came back dated 12,800, which is considerably more than 800 years old,
but all considerably less than the 110 million.
Now, if you kept sending, you might get one that they would accept, because the
response would be, well, you're crazy.
You don't send material for radiocarbon dating from 110 million year old
limestone.
It's all gone within 50-60,000 years.
It should be, but guess what?
It's not.
We have dated over 100 dinosaur bones now with radiocarbon dating.
This is the ileum bone there from Glenrose.
It's supposed to be 110 million years old.
It came back dated 19,000.
That's a long way from 110 million.
And in 65 million years, since the dinosaur is supposed to have been extinct,
all of the carbon-14 would be gone, like in 50-60,000 years.
And so you're crazy for even trying to date dinosaur bones.
If you think it's 110 million years, yes, but I don't.
And we've dated over 100 every single one of them.
100 out of 100 had significant radiocarbon in it.
Therefore, I think they're playing games.
And it's not 110 million years old.
There are some obvious assumptions that you're not always told about.
They dated it.
This is how old it is.
First, you have to know you're dealing with a closed system and there virtually
is no such thing.
Things leak in and leak out.
You have to know the beginning conditions.
It's simply a matter of guessing how much lead is radiogenic and how much lead is
produced naturally or is there naturally.
There are some reasons for some of the assumptions, but it's a guess.
And then you have to assume that the rate is constant and there are some very
serious challenges to that and that may be even more productive than the ones we've
looked at this evening.
But when you see these assumptions that you don't know and can't know and then you
see that known relationships contradict like with Mount St. Helens and the Grand
Canyon and then you see why Stanfield says there may not be good radiological clocks.
He goes on to explain his statements and age estimates on a given geological
stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different sometimes by
hundreds of millions of years as we've shown.
And so he says there is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological clock.
Now, he still uses them and believes the Earth is billions of years old but I think
he's right and I think that for I think good reasons.
Now, why do you think the Earth is old?
Radiometric dating is really not a very good reason when you learn the facts.
The second answer that we get typically involves geologic phenomenon.
Everybody knows it takes a long time to fossilize things and to petrify things and
to have all these layers that we see in the Grand Canyon takes millions and
millions of years and look at all the sedimentary rock and it takes millions of
years to form that.
And we look in the textbooks of stratigraphy tell us about the
sedimentation rates this is by Schuster and it's still in all the textbooks and
this is the standard conclusion about how long it takes to form one foot of
Paleozoic limestone.
2700 years.
That's the majority of it.
Different rates for different portions, we're told.
According to Schuster.
Now, some would have it much, much older.
This is actually a very conservative estimate.
In 96, this book was published making the statement the rate of one centimeter per
thousand years is typical.
Now, that's over 30,000 years per foot.
Most would say that's rather extreme though these people from Yale and
Dartmouth are very representative authorities.
30,000 years or even 3,000 years a foot is how this sediment accumulates and how the
rocks form.
It kind of reminds me of the family circus cartoon the little boy says, how big does
a stone have to grow before it becomes a rock?
It's growing real slow.
Do rocks grow?
Have you seen?
Or do they deteriorate?
If they grew even at the slow rate, you know, you just wait long enough and
you've got a rock house, you could have an extra bedroom and you din.
No, rocks don't do that.
They deteriorate and we should understand that.
But that's not the propaganda that's put out.
Notice the picture here of the beautiful fossil spider, wolf spider, fluorescent
fossil beds and there's a sign there at this national monument that says remember,
two inches equals one million years.
Now that's slower than Officer and Page but still on the order of what you
typically hear.
This is what we're paying for with our tax dollars.
Now just think about this for a minute.
This is the width of a human hair.
How long is it going to take to cover that hair at two inches per million years?
At Schuster's rate, that's the one that's faster than the others, 2500 years would
be required to cover one hair.
What's going to happen to the spider as it's being covered at that rate?
Is it still going to be there?
Is it going to sit there and hold still for 2500 years while the rot grows around
it?
That's the kind of thing you see in the textbooks.
That doesn't even make good nonsense.
If you just think.
It doesn't hurt.
Think about it.
There's no way that that's going to happen.
Dunbar and Rogers in their Principles of Stratigraphy talked about this problem as
a dilemma.
When you look at the rocks and you see the fossils and try to imagine how this could
happen slowly, you've got a problem.
He says to some thoughtful stratigraphers, this amazing discovery, billions of years,
presented a dilemma.
For if the known stratified rocks have been accumulating throughout this vast
span of time, the average rate of deposition must have been extremely slow.
3,000 years to form a foot.
The faster rate instead of 30,000.
Yet there is very good evidence that individual beds accumulated rapidly.
Very good evidence.
Now where's the evidence, good or otherwise, that it happened slowly?
No, the evidence is the opposite.
What's he talking about?
Well, we look at this shrimp, which is really not accurate.
This is not a shrimp.
This is a rock.
And my question is, how long did it take that rock to form?
Now just think about that.
You know the shrimp is going to lay out there on the beach after it dies for
years, days.
How long?
You ladies know you can put the shrimp in the refrigerator and it will just stay
there for years and years and years.
How long is this shrimp going to look like this before it's solidified into rock?
Well, if that rock is not formed within days, this picture you can't see.
I mean it just doesn't happen.
These are some fish from Ennis County, not too far from where I live.
Big, fat, juicy, plump fish that you lay out there in your backyard and it will
stay that way for years and years and years.
How long are these fish going to stay this way?
They became rock while they were still looking like this.
How long did it take that rock to form?
We're looking here at a picture of a fish eating his supper.
A heron and a perch, which are very similar to modern ones, supposed to be 135
million years old.
The big one here is about three feet long.
I enjoy eating with my brethren from time to time and some of them, we kid about
being kind of slow in their eating processes.
But thousands of years is kind of not...
How long did it take this fish to become a rock?
He got caught eating his supper.
He got caught in the concrete, if you please.
Fast forming concrete.
We're looking here at a fern, but this fern has not had time to wilt and it
became a rock.
This one is bent over as is the live fern that we see below it.
Obviously before it wilted, how long does it take a fern to wilt?
Ladies know something about that.
Just a few minutes sometimes.
But this one looks beautiful and it's a rock.
Now if we just think, we ought to know that this 30,000 years a foot,
2,500 years to cover a hair, propaganda in the textbooks and in our national
monuments is just not even good hogwash.
We're looking here at about a 43 foot fossil tree trunk.
The bottom portion of it is protruding into a coal seam.
And the top of it is protruding into a coal seam.
And in between you have hundreds of layers of sandstone.
The coal seam obviously took hundreds of thousands of years to form.
I mean we all heard that.
What's going to happen to the top of the tree while that's happening?
Obviously this is one event.
This is not hundreds of thousands of years.
What would it take to do something like this?
Dunbar and Rogers again comment, a thousand years more or less would have
been required to bury a shell five inches in diameter.
This is at the rapid Schuster rate.
With very local exceptions, fossil shells show no evidence of such long exposure.
As he said, there's very good evidence that they formed rapidly.
I want to know where the evidence is that it happened slowly.
You look at the seashell, this is one from Dallas, a beautiful ammonite that's still
iridescent.
Some of the live shells that are iridescent you can lay out in the sunshine
and it's gone in an afternoon.
It's supposed to have been there for 35 million years.
I think it was fossilized very quickly.
Some of you will recognize the jellyfish.
That little girl defining this for us the other night, she said it's just a bunch of
snot.
Pretty good description.
It's not much, it's not very stable.
It lays out on the beach for how long after it dies?
Long enough to be fossilized.
Here are fossils of jellyfish together with the ripple marks which likewise don't
last very long.
A close-up shows even the mouth parts preserved of the jellyfish.
Now you think, is it possible to do that slowly?
This is an ichthyosaur that looks like a fish.
It isn't.
It's a reptile.
It's about 28 feet long.
Frozen in the limestone, Sollenhofen limestone in Bavaria.
Even some of the soft parts are beautifully preserved.
We see the adipose tissue up here on the head.
Fatty tissue.
And then we look closely at the interior and we see this is a missus ichthyosaur.
The embryo is seen.
And a number of these obviously were caught in very catastrophic circumstances.
And buried.
And it really upset the missus ichthyosaurs because numbers of them are
involved in premature birth in this one area.
They got caught in a big storm and got buried by the sediment and it really upset
them.
And here they are giving live birth.
And I can sympathize with some of the ladies that think, well this is going to
take a hundred thousand years to get over.
But it really doesn't.
Nor did it with missus ichthyosaur.
There is no way to do that.
When you look at the rocks, the geologic phenomenon it says rapid everywhere you
look.
We talked about evidence for the young earth.
Well, also the evidence why they believe that it's old.
Radiometric dating, well that's not too good.
The geologic phenomenon is what I really like to talk about.
And from that, I think we can see good evidence.
As even many of the paleontologists today, perhaps most, would acknowledge.
The individual rocks happened rapidly.
Dunbar and Rogers as we saw a moment ago says there's very good evidence that the
individual beds accumulated rapidly.
And he's not saying that because it's fun to say for him.
But because of the kind of evidence that we were looking at.
But you ain't seen nothing yet.
Let's look at willow.
This is an amazingly preserved dinosaur North Carolina State University with heart
intact.
And we see some of these programs where they're trying to transplant the heart and
they get in the helicopter and they put the thing on dry ice and they run across
the roof of the hospital and dash into... because why?
It deteriorates quickly.
But this became a rot before the heart deteriorated.
Here in the museum sign, what are the odds of finding a fossilized dinosaur heart?
The seemingly impossible has occurred within the 66 million year old skeleton,
which they have no doubt about, of course.
Here we see the picture of the thorax, the chest, with the heart intact.
And they've done CAT scans and all kinds of examination.
This shows the clavicle, the collarbone, the neck bone here.
But right here in the center is the heart.
And there's the right ventricle and the left ventricle of the dinosaur heart.
And in the center, the interventricular septum.
All beautifully preserved.
Now how long did it take this?
Now this is not a heart, this is a rock.
And how long did it take to form?
At the rate of 2,500 years, it would cover a hair.
I mean, this is idiocy.
You just don't have words strong enough to describe the nonsense here.
From National Geographic a few years ago, here's a mummified duck-billed dinosaur.
90% covered in soft tissue.
Stomach content so well preserved, researchers can tell what he had for his
last supper.
But, of course, he was covered at the rate of 2,500 years to cover a hair,
30,000 years a foot.
But it gets worse.
We're looking here at dinosaur blood cells from a T-Rex.
Blood cells, of course, last millions of years.
Had to be 65 million.
And this was what was written in science research news back in 93.
Round, tiny, nucleated, they were threaded to the bone like red blood cells in blood
vessels.
But blood cells in a dinosaur should have disappeared eons ago.
It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone.
The bones are, after all, 65 million years old.
How could blood cells survive that long?
And, of course, the author is just asking the question.
But there was a furor.
The lady that wrote this lost her job.
Got in serious trouble.
But she decided to do more work.
And she persevered and got her doctorate.
She is now Dr. Mary Switzer at North Carolina State University.
And has continued this investigation.
And has found some amazing things published just fairly recently.
Now, her colleagues will say this is impossible.
But she says, here it is.
This is the squishy, gushy, soft tissue from a T-Rex.
Now, I was writing her about this particular specimen.
And she acknowledged, our current theories do not account for soft tissue and
cellular preservation.
Never in my wildest dreams would I have predicted what we found.
It is certainly not anything like what you see in the textbooks or according to the
theories.
It was reported in Discover in April of 06.
And she was interviewed.
She said, I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said.
He knew that what I was finding wasn't possible.
And it is not.
If it is 65 million years old, he is absolutely right.
I wrote back and said, well, what data would convince you?
And he said, none.
Very scientific.
And he is telling the truth.
Believe me.
The evidence doesn't matter.
Since then, she has just found a wealth of material in the Tyrannosaurus Rex bones.
The gushy, stretchy, soft tissue, blood cells, blood vessels.
And it is not possible for it to be 65 million years old.
The conclusion is these dinosaur fossils cannot be old.
It is impossible.
And, of course, the evolutionist knows that.
Now, let's think about that for a moment.
I mean, it won't hurt.
Let's try it.
If the fossils in the layers are formed rapidly, and from the things we have
looked at, the jellyfish, the little stretchy, gushy blood vessels,
if the fossils in the layers are formed rapidly, wouldn't it necessarily follow
that the layers that the fossils are in followed rapidly?
I think you have to reach that conclusion.
And so when we are looking at all of these layers, all of which have the kinds of
fossils we are talking about in them, then we are talking about something that
did not take millions of years.
Well, then where is the time?
And even the geologists today are saying, well, yes, we know the individual layers
formed rapidly.
If you know that, where is all this time?
And they have an answer today.
They say it is in between the layers.
And I say, you mean where there is no evidence?
And that kind of slows them down a little.
But it is worse than that because there is evidence in between, as we will see.
But let's let them say this for us.
At the time, the president of the British Geological Association in his book,
New Catastrophism, the president of the British Geological Association said,
we cannot escape the conclusion that sedimentation was at times very rapid.
You look at the trees, he referred specifically to the polystrate trees.
But at other times, he says, there were long breaks in the sedimentation.
Now, what is the evidence for the long breaks?
Well, that is where there is none, but he is confident that it is there,
admitting it looks uniform and continuous, but we know.
I mean, after all, we know dinosaurs were 65 million years ago and so there have to
be breaks.
It does not look like it, but we know there had to be.
And when you look at the rocks, yes, it looks uniform and continuous.
And you can tell when it is not.
You have what we call bioturbidation.
If a surface is exposed for any period of time, for less than a year, you have got
clams burrowing, you have got worms burrowing, you have got plants sending
down roots and they just plow up the surface and they do not leave these
smooth, straight lines.
They are eroded and they are plowed under or over or within.
But what we are looking at here is straight and level and smooth with the
interface is perfect in many instances.
But he is sure it is there, somewhere.
He says, the geological record is constantly lying to us.
You do not listen to it.
It pretends to tell us the whole truth when it is only telling us a very small
part of it.
Nowhere in the world is the record or even part of it complete.
He imagines something much more than is there.
It may seem paradoxical to me, but the gaps probably cover most of
Earth's history.
And so he is basing his conclusions mostly on what is not there.
I think you ought to base your conclusions on what is there.
Is that better science?
It was during the breaks that most of the events probably occurred.
He has faith in that.
It is not because of the evidence, but it is the lack that he depends on.
It is the gaps that really matter.
Now that just boggles my mind that a scientist could say, it is not the
evidence that matters, it is where there is not evidence.
That is what matters.
And that is where I am going to tell my story.
And that is where most of it took place.
The individual rocks, yes, they happened rapidly.
Well, we have got to get time in there somewhere.
It is in the gaps.
That is where most of it happened.
Well, let us look at some of the gaps.
Here is the Coconino Sandstone and the Hermit Shale down toward the base of the
Grand Canyon.
And here is the interface.
Now, this is... it looks uniform and continuous, but according to their dating
of these rocks, there is at least 110 million years in between these two layers.
That is what the geologic column says.
Well, there was erosion for 110 million years, which left this straight perfectly
conforming line.
Flat, smooth surface, not bioturbidated, not eroded.
That takes a lot of faith, doesn't it?
That is certainly not what it looks like.
And when we look at the canyon, that is the way it looks from one end to
the other.
It looks smooth and straight at the contact lines, not like there was
bioturbidation, not like there was erosion.
It looks like one continuous deposition.
A year-long series of catastrophes, I think, would do an excellent job of
explaining this.
Consider the contact lines where there is no evidence.
Well, no, there is evidence at the contact lines.
Here is one of them and we are looking at little bird tracks.
And the little bird walks along in the mud and that is going to stay there for 110
million years before the next cover comes over.
Even if you did form it rapidly and you got the track in the rock like in the
concrete, then what is going to happen in the tens of years if this is exposed?
You got to have it covered quickly.
The next one has to come quick.
This is not merely a lack of evidence.
But there is evidence at the interface.
The most common feature in between the layers are the ripple marks.
And it has been said that if you follow any bedding plane far enough, you will
find ripple marks there.
That is common.
Schrock in his rock book, as we called it, Schrock's Rock Book, because they were one
of the commonest, most widespread of original sedimentary features,
ripple marks are preserved in conglomerates, sandstones, siltstones,
plastic limestones, dole stones.
Yet there are no rocks that don't have ripple marks.
Many examples have been described from rocks of all ages, I would say
environments rather than ages.
But all kinds of rocks all over the world have got ripple marks.
This is from down at Glen Rose with the dinosaur tracks, which by the way are not
going to stay there for millions of years.
Any tracks are going to be eroded quickly, usually with the next rain.
But ripple marks here are beautifully preserved.
Now the host layer that forms these ripple marks had to be formed rapidly in order to
preserve them.
These little ripple marks move from minute to minute as the water runs over the
sediment, the bottom of the stream.
But this is frozen in the rock.
Then, once it's frozen in the rock, if it's not covered, it'll be eroded
within tens of years if that surface is left exposed.
And so the next layer had to be rapid to prevent erosion.
And so the host rock has to be quick, and the one on top of it had to be quick,
and the one on top has ripple marks on top of it.
So it had to be quick, and the one on top of it had to be quick to preserve it.
And so on we go up the column.
Virtually all layers have ripple marks at the bedding plane, which says virtually
all of these layers have to be rapid one after the other to form and to preserve.
What's at the interface where there is good evidence?
It's not just a lack of evidence, which is bad enough.
There is evidence, and it's very negative when you look at the interface.
But let me show you something that's a real killer.
Now you've got to think a little bit.
But this refutes, I think, conclusively, the picture that we're typically presented
in the geologic column.
Here's the Red Wall Mississippian, the most dramatic layer that you see when
you go to the Canyon.
The Mississippian is almost halfway up the geologic column.
The lowest layer in the column is the Cambrian.
And the Muave limestone here is Cambrian.
So here's the lowest layer, Cambrian.
You skip the Ordovician, the Silurian, the Devonian, and get up to the
Mississippian.
There's almost 200 million years that are missing between the Red Wall and the
Muave.
Now how do you skip 200 million years?
Well, if you've got deposition in one place, you've got to have erosion
somewhere else.
And so there was erosion here during that period, which left these straight level
lines that you can trace for 300 miles up the Canyon.
But that's not the only challenge, just the fact that it's missing with a
straight line in between.
As you look above the Muave, you see this thin piece of Red Wall, but then above the
Red Wall, you see more Muave.
Now you skip forward 200 million years, and then you come back 200 million years
in order to get some more Muave, and then you go forward, and then you go
backward, and then you go forward, and then you're back and forth,
skipping 200 million years, backwards and forwards, and backwards and forwards,
eight times.
Ain't no way.
It's interbedded, and the fundamental rules of stratigraphy indicate if it's
interbedded, it must be contemporaneous, even though the geologic column says it's
200 million years apart.
It can't be.
It is absolutely impossible.
It looks continuous without the bioturbidation.
It is continuous.
It cannot possibly be millions, these two cannot possibly be 200 million
years apart.
They are interbedded.
And so geology fails.
When you study the rocks, you know this story is a tale that does not fit the
facts.
But how can you really envision forming all of these layers quickly?
Well, let's look at it happening.
Mount St. Helens is a demonstration of what happened.
1980, it blew its top and the pyroclastic cloud went across the countryside at
almost 200 miles an hour and laid down sediment here, forming Spirit Lake,
the trees across the top.
And then when Spirit Lake broke through the temporary dam, it eroded down through
the newly laid sediment, leaving this huge canyon up to 600 feet thick.
That is deep.
Here is another picture.
600 foot cliff over here.
And this is rock now.
And this little trickle down at the bottom is what cut this big canyon.
You think?
I don't think so.
It was a whole lot more water that eroded that canyon.
And that reminds us of another story that is being told.
But we look at the walls of this canyon and you see these finely graduated,
laminated layers that happened one afternoon at almost 200 miles an hour.
We were told in class, you count these little layers, it is at least a year per
layer.
Probably more.
And so you had the job of going out and counting the layers and seeing how many
thousands of years were represented here.
600 feet of this happened in less than three months.
Most of it in one afternoon.
And then with the erosion through that you have a canyon that looks for all the world
like the Grand Canyon.
A 40th scale Grand Canyon, the same size slumping canyons, the same geomorphology.
It reminds me of the cartoon that a friend of mine drew.
This million year old canyon was formed by Mount St. Helens in 1980.
Yeah, that's the story.
But it's also the demonstration of what I believe happened.
And we can see that.
Did you see it forming slowly?
No.
You saw it forming rapidly, which is better science?
We've all seen the speleotherms in the caves, the stalactites and the stalagmites
and heard the spiel, these are hundreds of thousands of years old.
I was taught in my textbook at Indiana University it takes at least 100,000 years
to form one cubic inch.
And at that rate it would take a long time to form these tall speleotherms.
This one from North Alabama.
The previous one from near Bedford, Indiana.
Which is not too far from where this picture was taken.
This is the George Rogers Clark Memorial near Vincennes, Indiana on the banks of
the Wabash River.
A clay bank here.
Limestone here was quarried from within just about three miles of where that slide
before last was taken.
Same limestone, water percolates down through the cracks in the rocks and in the
basement we have speleotherms just like we do in the caves.
The building when these pictures were taken was 40 years old.
It's a very interesting story how these pictures were taken because they would not
allow anyone in even the National Speleological Society.
We had to threaten to cut their funding off through the legislature which they
then responded to.
I think I could have had one of those columns when I finally showed up.
I did get in and there were five of these columns and they just didn't want people
to know what was going on.
In New Zealand, a friend of mine sent me this picture of the zinc mine.
Notice the people over here in the lower right hand corner.
This was a 30 year old tunnel with a concrete bunker there across the middle.
Obviously it takes hundreds of thousands of years.
I have an associate who is referred to here in Arizona highways Jerry Trout and a
good friend who works with Jerry Trout down in South Texas, Sonora Caverns.
And here they report while some believe beautiful icicle looking stalactites take
years to form, Jerry Trout, cave specialist with the Forest Service,
says that through photo monitoring he has watched a stalactite grow several inches
in a matter of days.
And his associate told me of being there when they set up the camera on time-lapse
photography and the thing grew past the lens and out of the frame in a month and
so they had to back up and do it quicker.
It's just not so that it takes millions of years.
Here is a scene from Carlsbad Cavern.
Of course there are a lot of bats flying around there and one of them got trapped
in a stalactite.
Real slow bat.
We're looking here at a boot.
We're familiar with that here in Texas.
This is from out in West Texas.
Inside of it is a petrified cowboy leg with flesh including bones that are
fossilized.
Some bad things happened to him.
The bottom of his foot is crushed.
We found the boot.
Actually this is part of his femur down there slammed into the boot.
This is all we know about him.
But when we look closely at these bones, in fact we've taken them to a hospital
here in Dallas to be CAT scanned.
They tell us this is actually a part of the festered part of the wound that is now
rock that is preserved in the cowboy boot which was made out of T-Rex skin.
You think?
It was actually made by the J.
Leddy Boot Company and it was made in the 50's.
We have identified it from the stitch pattern.
When the CAT scan came back they had to have a name on it.
It said, Unfortunate Cowboy.
We prefer to call him the Limestone Cowboy.
One of my favorite fossils was from New Zealand.
This is not a hat.
This is a rock now.
But obviously it doesn't take a long time.
Some of you have seen the teddy bear that is petrified in the artifact room.
When you look at the rapid and continuous nature of the fossil record from the
polystrate, that is through many layers and the very detailed fossils like the
shrimp and the jellyfish and the ferns and the tall trees, you know these things
don't happen slowly.
You see the continuous and sequential layers clearly indicated by what's at the
interface, the ripple marks, the little ephemeral bird tracks, and then Mount St.
Helens demonstrating this very phenomenon.
We see coal having to form rapidly with the tree extending through two coal seams
with many layers in between.
All, by the way, we can make in six hours.
Cave formations don't take a long time.
Petrification doesn't.
What is there about the geologic phenomenon that takes a long time?
I love to talk about it.
I won't talk about fossils and rocks in terms of the age of the Earth.
That's my bar patch.
That's where I want to go.
I love to talk about it.
It's all rapid.
Now then, why do you think the Earth is old?
It's not radiometric dating.
That's not too good.
It's certainly not the geologic phenomenon.
That says the opposite.
And all we've been talking about so far is the evidence for the old age of the Earth.
And it really turns out to be the opposite.
Let's think for just a minute about some of the young Earth evidence, which we
haven't really dealt with, as described by anti-creationist W.D.
Stanfield.
Now, he hates the creationists.
Written several books, but he says, there are some indicators of a young
Earth, which you haven't heard about probably in the textbooks.
He refers to water from volcanoes and lava from volcanoes.
And when we learn how much is coming out and how many volcanoes we have,
there's some very interesting information there.
We've got about 600 active volcanoes in the world today.
About 10,000 inactive, which I think is primarily from the time of the flood.
But 600 that are now active.
If we take Pericotin, which is probably the most studied volcano in the world from
down in Mexico.
We know how it formed and how much gas is... and most of the gas coming out is
the H2O forming water for the first time, juvenile water.
Most of it is water coming out.
And then, of course, the lava.
But there's enough water coming out that would fill the oceans.
70 of the volcanoes like this would fill the oceans in a billion years.
It's supposed to have been 4.5 billion.
And 600 of them would fill the ocean eight times.
And that's what we have active today, not counting the 10,000 inactive.
What are you going to do with all the extra water?
And, of course, nobody thinks all the water came from volcanoes.
Four of them, with the output of lava that we see at Pericotin, would account for the
entire crust of the Earth in a billion years.
And, of course, a very small portion of the crust of the Earth is from volcanoes.
This says it's not that old, which Stanfield acknowledges.
When you look at the pressure in oil reserves, we dig down and drill down and
we tap some of these gas wells and it will blow the rig way up into the sky.
You've seen probably movies of that.
How does this rock maintain the pressure as long as they say it's been there?
You can measure the porosity of the rock, which you have to know in order to
discover oil, know if the rock can hold the oil.
And it's a fairly simple calculation when you know the porosity to see how long the
pressures could be maintained.
There's no way these pressures could last more than just a few tens of thousands of
years, but they're supposed to have been there for 4.5 billion or at least billions
of years.
We can measure very accurately the uranium accumulation in the ocean.
Geiger counters, we can really... and we know how much is being delivered to the
ocean each year and how much is there.
Well, just a minuscule fraction of what ought to be there if it's been going on
very long.
Same thing with radiocarbon in the atmosphere that we mentioned a moment ago.
It would reach equilibrium in 30,000 years according to Libby, who got the Nobel
Prize for the radiocarbon system.
It's not.
It's about 20% short of equilibrium.
Hasn't accumulated to that point and slows down as it approaches.
According to Stanfield, the helium in the atmosphere ought to be at least 50,000
times greater than what it is.
Now, since he wrote this, there have been some mechanisms proposed that could
possibly explain that, but that's at least questionable.
But that's his argument.
He says there's the meteoric dust in the strata would likewise indicate a young
earth and there are no meteorites in the strata.
Some craters, maybe.
Obviously, in some places on the surface.
But here is this geologic column which records 500 million years of time.
Where are the meteorites?
It ought to collect them all the time, shouldn't it?
But if it's a year-long series of catastrophes and just happen quickly,
then we can understand there being very few.
And we possibly have found a few, but there are virtually none.
He says none.
Population dynamics certainly argues for a young earth.
When you look at two people at the present population growth rate from the time of
the flood, time of the creation of the flood, you've got 6 billion people at
actually less than the present population growth rate.
2,500 years.
What happens in 25,000 years?
It fits our view, it does not fit their view.
And these are the arguments of the anti-creationists.
He says this is good evidence, and it is in each instance.
And those...
there's quite a few of them.
When you look at the evidence for the young earth, there's a lot of good
evidence, even according to the anti-creationists.
When you look at the evidence for the old earth, they're okay.
Your radiometric dating and your geologic phenomena, that's not really very good
evidence when you look at it carefully.
We have more and better on one side of the scales, we have fewer and not so good
evidence on the other side of the scales.
Now, which is the better model?
I think very obviously the best scientific conclusion is that the earth is young.
That's what the scientific evidence.
If you just go by the science, without the philosophy and the religion,
just go by the science, it fits better.
We have more and we have better evidence.
It fits the facts best.
Music
Music Music Music
Music We're speaking this evening about the record of the rocks.
As someone told me, for a fellow who has rocks in his head, this is a very
appropriate subject.
I plead guilty to that.
I enjoy talking about the rocks.
They do provide a challenge at least in terms of the way they're typically
presented.
If you watch the education channels, public TV, you look in the earth science
textbooks, you'll see evidence from the rocks representing that which flatly
contradicts what we read in the Bible.
When we look at the rocks, we're talking about not just all rocks, but the record
that we have reference to involves the sedimentary rocks.
That's rocks laid down by water.
And if you have studied earth science, know just a little bit about geology,
you'll understand that there is an average of about a mile and a half of sedimentary
rot that covers the continents.
That's rocks laid down by water.
Now in those rocks, there are billions and billions of dead things that are fossils.
Now when you have billions and billions of dead things and rocks laid down by water
all over the world, I think you've got a pretty strong argument for catastrophic
judgment.
But of course the evolutionist tells us this was accomplished by slow gradual
buildup over millions of years.
And as we saw last night, I think it's accomplished by a rapid year-long series
of catastrophes that it could not be slow and the evidence for slow is not there.
But the evolutionary representation of this record of the rocks looks like this.
This is in all the biology textbooks, all the earth science textbooks.
And we are told that as you go further down in the rocks, you find these simple
animals and as you come up near the top they get more complex and then the modern
animals near the top which shows an evolutionary progression.
And the record of the rocks has recorded like a tape recorder the evolution of life
through time.
That's their interpretation of what we are seeing.
The biggest problem with this representation is rather obvious and that
is that you can't go out and look in the rocks and find it anywhere.
It exists in the textbooks but it does not exist anywhere on the face of the earth.
That is in the complete form that you see in the textbooks.
Now that sounds like a rather brash statement.
Notice the quote from Leight and Judson one of the typical textbooks used as a
geology text in our universities.
Because we cannot find sedimentary rock representing all of earth time neatly in
one convenient area we must piece together the rock sequence from locality to
locality.
This process of tying one rock sequence in one place to another in some other place
is known as correlation.
And so instead of digging down and finding it in any one place you find some over
here and find some over there and you tie it together and correlate it, co-relate
the layers not based on what you see in any one place.
As the Encyclopedia Britannica says, the end product of correlation is a mental
abstraction called the geologic column.
Now you don't get that impression in the undergraduate earth science textbooks.
That's a shame.
But this is not concrete if you please.
It is a mental abstraction that is built together.
Well how do you build it?
How do you know when you correlate whether this rock goes down or up?
Well if you're an evolutionist and you have rocks with simple animals,
where do they go?
They go on the bottom.
I'm somewhat oversimplifying but that's a general picture of what's happening.
R.H.
Rastel in the Encyclopedia Britannica puts it this way It cannot be denied that
geologists are here arguing in a circle.
The succession of organisms has been determined by study of their remains
embedded in the rocks and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the
organisms they contain.
Now let me illustrate and simplify somewhat oversimplifying but still not
misrepresenting.
A person says we have a primitive fossil here.
Okay, how do you know?
And of course that would go on the bottom of the column.
But how do you know that's a primitive fossil?
Well, it's found in an old rock.
Alright, that would make sense.
If you've got an old rock, it'd be a primitive fossil but now how do you know
that this is an old rock?
Well, it's got a primitive fossil in it.
And this is obviously not proving anything.
But that is how this column in its complete form is built.
You don't determine the kind of rock it is by the kind of rock it is but by the
critters that you find in it, the dead things in the rock and how primitive you
think they are.
There are a number of other problems with it as well.
For one thing, as we look at this column we see mostly animals with backbones or
the vertebrates.
Relatively speaking they just virtually don't exist in the fossil record.
It's mainly clams clams and more clams at least proportionately.
It's skewed obviously to the more impressive larger animals whereas at least
95% of the entire fossil record is composed of marine invertebrates.
But you virtually see none of those in the geologic column.
Of the 5% that's left, 4.5% are plants and algae.
We haven't gotten to the vertebrates yet which are mostly what you see represented
in the column.
The vertebrates are about 1,100th of 1%.
Not 1%.
1,100th of a percent.
That's just virtually not there.
Most have it.
Why don't you then represent it with marine invertebrates?
Somebody might get the impression this is a marine deposit or maybe a flood deposit
which was the impression of the founders of the discipline of geology.
They all thought that because I think that's what it clearly indicates for
reasons we'll be looking at.
The father of modern stratigraphy, Nicholas Steno, is touted as a hero today
in all the geology textbooks.
Dotton Batten's Evolution of the Earth says besides correctly interpreting
fossils, the result was the formulation of the most basic principles for analysis of
Earth history.
Steno showed great insight and he's the one that started it.
His rules are the ones you have to memorize in order to pass stratigraphy
today.
Steno's axioms provide the ultimate basis of practically all interpretation of Earth
history.
So their importance can hardly be overemphasized.
I had one geology professor interrupt a presentation I was making down at Lamar
University.
We know all about Nicholas Steno.
We have to memorize his 12 axioms and she had to rattle them off right in the middle
of the presentation.
I'm glad that you know about him and understand Nicholas Steno but do you know
how he thought this record came to be?
Well, yes, he was an evolutionist.
Well, that's just not the case.
His book was on display in Cambridge where I was doing work there at Trinity College
and this is a picture of that book and it's in the fly piece stating it's
dedicated to the proof of the Noahic Indulge.
This is where he was coming from.
In fact, it was revealed and it's just pretty much a revelation last year in
geology that Steno believed in a universal flood throughout his life.
This is how he explained it and he understood it well enough to write the
rules that you still have to memorize if you are going to pass stratigraphy.
Now people will say well, this flood geology is a bunch of foolishness.
It won't really explain what we see in geology.
Is that so?
Nicholas Steno refutes that.
This was his concept and he was a pioneer who was a genius and if you don't
understand what he understands, you can't do geology today.
Building on his work men like Whitcomb and Morris wrote the Genesis flood compiling
the evidence from geology together with what we know in Genesis and showing that
this is the best explanation for what we see in the rock record.
Interestingly, John C.
McCampbell agreed to write the forward to this book.
He is an evolutionist, professor and head of the Department of Geology at the
University of Southeastern Louisiana and he says in that forward that the facts of
geology do fit this explanation and that the authors make a very strong case for
this explanation and present a serious challenge to the evolutionary
interpretation.
Now, he didn't say their view fits, our view doesn't, but he came pretty close
even though he is an evolutionist.
It does fit and so when people say well it's just no way that a flood can explain
what we see in geology.
Well, they just don't know what they are talking about.
But if you had a flood, wouldn't it just mix everything up?
Not necessarily.
You have floods that bury things basically where they are, transporting sometimes,
but the general rule is things get buried where they live and not everything lives
at the same place.
Things that live at the bottom of the ocean would be buried in different places
from things that live up here in Texas.
And you see gradations even in the ocean.
The Cambrian, the bottom lowest layer as defined by the evolutionist is ocean
bottom.
Critters that lived on the bottom there, some of them very complex as we will see.
And the Ordovician lived a little higher, the Devonian still higher with some
amphibians and the worldwide flood would bury organisms where they lived.
And I think we see that at least in a general way.
And I underscore that because there is going to be some mixing.
But in a general way that would be reflected.
And as we see and imagine the water rising we would see different environments being
buried.
Now they are not all together in one place.
And you may have two or three of these in one place, but seldom more than that.
But here putting them together it would leave a picture like this.
And then when buried we can see that it would leave a deposit that would have some
kind of an order.
Here we see the kind of deposit that would segregate and separate the groups of
animals and they would be buried separately not because they are separated
by millions of years.
But because they live in different places and that is where they would be buried.
Now you don't have this kind of an ordered sequence.
This is an arranged, skewed misrepresentation of what is actually
there.
It is a conceptual correlation that is useless as proof of evolution because it
is based on the circular logic.
But you do see a general order I think that reflects the ecology that we can
observe today.
I do think this representation however is useful as a model.
As a representation of what ought to be if evolution is true.
Now we don't assume the thing to be true build an illustration of it and say see it
is proved.
That is the circular logic.
It is not proof.
But it is a good model.
It is an illustration of what ought to be if evolution is true.
We have an alternative model and then we compare that with the real world,
with the facts and that is how we test.
We don't just holler and see who can say it is proved loudest.
We look at the evidence and we see which fits the facts best.
How do you test this model against the facts?
I think Stephen Stanley does a good job of describing how that test should proceed
from Johns Hopkins University.
He is a very famous geologist and he says topsy-turvy fossils would test it.
We will look at a fuller description of that before we conclude tonight.
But this idea of things that are supposed to be at the bottom on top or things
supposed to be on the top on bottom, topsy-turvy fossils would disprove
evolution.
Any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our theory.
And so if you are finding things that are supposed to be on the bottom up at the
top, then you have got a problem.
Well, you should have.
The problem for the evolutionist is we find that kind of thing all the time.
That is really not that unusual.
They are called living fossils.
Niles Eldridge wrote a book about that.
He is the curator of the American Museum of Natural History and professor at
Columbia.
He says there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare that is
of these ancient fossils supposed to be down at the bottom that are found alive
today.
We have not completely solved the riddle of living fossils.
That would be a topsy-turvy fossil, but there are so many and it is so common
they really just do not pay a whole lot of attention to it.
They really want the other kind of contradiction as we will see.
But to give an illustration of what he is talking about with living fossils,
maybe the most famous one is the coelacanth.
A beautiful fossil here of a rather strange looking fish, but one that we find
rather commonly in the fossil record.
Described here by Keith Thompson, who is president of the Academy of Natural
Sciences, as a living fossil.
He says in his book, a fish thought to be extinct for 70 million years, which is
about the time the dinosaurs had been extinct.
The fish was a coelacanth, an animal that thrived concurrently with the dinosaurs.
But from the point where they are supposed to have gone extinct, all the way up the
column you find no coelacanths and virtually no dinosaurs.
They look quite like the what?
The modern forms, yes we have found them.
Now he says we have no fossil coelacanths younger than the late Cretaceous.
That is where the dinosaurs are supposed to have gone extinct.
And so we have got plenty up to that point.
From that point forward, nothing.
But so far we have caught about 600 of them out in the ocean since 1937 when we
found the first one.
But they were extinct at the same time, well because we don't have them in the
column.
If they stop in the column and you don't have them above, I think that just means
they didn't live at these places.
They lived at these places.
And the fact you don't find them up here doesn't mean that they are not still
around somewhere.
That's the topsy fossils.
The thing supposed to be at the bottom that you find at the top.
Alan Turner refers to that and especially the implications regarding extinction
just, what, in September of this year.
Paleontologists really don't know the answer to that.
You think some of these quotations are maybe from five or six years ago.
Well, surely they have learned something since then.
Well, this is pretty much up to date I think, September 6, 2007.
We don't know the answer to that.
Why some animals survive extinction and others don't is one of the most difficult
questions in paleontology and why you see this thing that is obviously extinct
according to the column but swimming around they don't know.
It does falsify the idea that because you don't find it above a certain point,
it's extinct.
And you have literally hundreds of examples of that.
But the thing that really is a test in the mind of the evolutionist is the other kind
of contradiction.
What's supposed to be up found down or what we'll call the turvy fossils.
Because if the mammals had not got there yet and you find them down here at the
bottom then obviously you got a real challenge.
Richard Dawkins describes the implications.
We've spoken about him several times this week.
We should be very surprised, for example, to find humans appearing in the record
before mammals are supposed to evolve.
If a single well verified mammal skull were to turn up in 500 million year old
rocks, our whole modern theory of evolution would be utterly destroyed.
So he's got his chin out pretty far here.
You can't find this.
And he's rather confident because if you do find it then he's got answers for that
too.
For example, we have found that kind of thing rather commonly.
One very obvious and dramatic example is near LaSalle, Utah where perfectly modern
human skeletons replaced with malachite are found in a layer that's also found at
Dinosaur National Monument.
One that is known for its dinosaurs in the Dakota Sandstone.
So the key phrase in his statement is if a well verified mammal skull were to show
up.
And when you find it, it's not going to be verified.
It must have fallen down a crack.
They crawled back in a cave.
This is a mine collapse or any kind of explanation.
You don't have to have evidence for it.
You know dinosaurs didn't live with humans.
They were 100 million years apart, most of them.
And so if you find them together, something bad happens.
Something got messed up.
Well, we went back to the site to see if we could well verify.
And it's a part of an open pit copper mine just about 20 miles south of Moab.
And where you see the back hole here is where the skeletons were found.
Here's one of them still in the rock.
This is 50 feet down in the Dakota Sandstone.
And you see in the lower right hand corner the pelvis, the knee up near the top,
the foot over in the lower left.
This one is articulated or together as in life.
Most of them are just bones piled together as is the case here.
Some of these look like they go together.
They really don't.
They're just piled together.
This is one that had been out of the rock for about 5 minutes when we washed it off
there with a canteen and held it up for the picture.
It's replaced with malachite, which obviously shows it's not a recent burial.
It contains no collagen.
That typically takes about a thousand years to dissipate.
And so this is an excellent, turvy fossil.
I think there's as much verification as you could ever find.
We talked to the fellow who actually uncovered it with the bulldozer.
Ironically, his father drove the bulldozer at this spot numbers of years ago.
This is Dave Fuller.
And he's pointing to the spot where this was found.
He says there were no broken layers.
There were no caves, no mine.
Looking at a side view, we see the mining operation of the 30's where his father
drove the bulldozer.
And they hit rock so hard that they were tearing up the bulldozers.
And so it stopped and went out of business.
And didn't start again until the 70's.
And then they went on down to this level where the skeletons were found.
Again, a diagram here shows the mining operation of the 30's and then the 70's.
Here the road cut was done in 1930.
And prior to the road cut, this was completely continuous.
The skeletons were found here.
Again, 50 feet down in the Dakota Sandstone.
There is zero evidence for the intrusional burial of these skeletons.
In fact, just overwhelming evidence against it.
If they're before 1930, this is the way it looked.
And remember then what Dawkins says, if you can well verify it, his conclusion
is evolution would be utterly destroyed.
I think that's exactly what's happened.
But anytime you find bones, they're going to be intrusionally buried.
That's just the assumption.
But he goes on in this discussion of what would test and falsify evolution saying,
ironically, it's also the reason why creationists are so keen on the fake human
footprints which were carved during the Depression to fool tourists in the
dinosaur beds of Texas.
So he's heard about our work down at Glen Rose all the way from Oxford.
He refuses to come look.
But he's sure that they're fake.
But understands that if they were real, this would falsify and utterly destroy.
And of course one of the main reasons for the interest is that you can't
intrusionally bury footprints, can you?
They are where they are.
You can't erode them and redeposit and they don't fall down cracks.
And so this is really better evidence than the bones, which he understands.
Several of you here have traveled with us down to Dinosaur Valley State Park and
seen the footprints there.
This is where the Paluxy River runs through the park and there are just all
kinds of dinosaur tracks all over the place down there.
They were made famous back in the 40's by Roland T.
Bird who published a number of articles and we can see the big sauropod-like
elephant tracks almost and then the three-toed theropods.
Here's one of those three-toed tracks which is rather unusual.
It's raised which caused us to do some head scratching here.
The tracks should be depressed, shouldn't they?
Well, yes, but what happened here, the dinosaur stepped sunk down,
left the depressed track, other material washed over, filled it in and what filled
it in became harder when it became rock so that when it's later uncovered and erosion
now affects it, the center, the infill is resistant, more resistant to erosion than
what's around it and so it winds up being raised.
This is the raised infill.
That's significant for some points we'll make again in a moment.
But in addition to tracks like this, we also have tracks that look like this.
Wonder what that could be?
Well, it couldn't be a human track.
They were 100 million years apart from the dinosaurs according to the evolutionists.
If they're together, it would utterly destroy and so it...
Well, this one has to be carved and this is Dawkins' conclusion.
We'll come back to that in a moment.
I was somewhat intimidated by the objection because it was just almost too
good to be true and so we looked around for some that weren't quite so good and
found some as well.
Here's one in the lower right hand corner that was identified by the Dallas Crime
Lab as a human footprint of the same criteria that identify footprints at a
crime scene along with dinosaur tracks that had just been excavated and some of
the tracks that we found were very very human-like.
But the explanation was either that this is erosion or they were carved.
It has to be one or the other.
So we got a new set of objections instead of falling down a crack or intrusionally
buried.
Now then, it's erosion or carved.
Well, Stan Taylor decided to test some of these ideas back in the early 70s,
taking a bulldozer backhoe and following a trail of two tracks that were seen there
in the river that came out of the riverbank.
Well, there are alternating layers of clay and limestone and clay and limestone,
about six feet of them there.
And if he removes that and these tracks continue back up under the bank,
what would that say about the idea they'd been carved?
Pretty well rip it, wouldn't it?
He did and, yes, found nine more tracks, for a total of eleven, in a right-left
pattern.
Some of them very clear and obvious with the mud push-up around it that you can see
here, again arguing against the erosion factor.
That doesn't leave a ring around the shape.
And so a lot of people got excited about this.
It looked like very good evidence.
And then Glenn Kuban came up with an explanation.
And he got Humanist of the Year for this explanation.
He says, are these kind of duck-looking tracks, and there are several of those in
the area, erode to look like the one on the right, but the elongate tracks,
like you see here at B, erode over a period of time to finally wind up looking
like the one down at the lower right-hand corner.
And that's kind of human-like.
And so these are just eroded dinosaur tracks.
And now then we don't have to worry about that anymore.
However, when you go back and look at these tracks, here are some of the
dinosaur tracks with that infill that was harder.
And what happens with erosion here?
It gets sharper and clearer because the infill is harder.
And when you look at a side view, the three-dimensional aspect of this shows
the center being raised, and that's not going to erode to look like a human track.
It looks more like a dinosaur track with more erosion.
And some of the casts that were made by Stan Taylor were so detailed.
Does this look like an eroded dinosaur track?
There's just too much detail for that to be a credible thought.
You put a human foot in it and it fits perfectly.
The one that really persuaded me, and I was trying to play the devil's
advocate, is there some way that this could be explained, was this track.
And we extended that 11-track series to 14.
This was one in the extension.
You have to look at this a minute to really see it.
As we highlight this area, you can see the dinosaur portion of it.
It's about 25 inches long, but look what is in the middle of it.
All five toes and instep and heel.
But this one is perfect.
Several were saying, well, maybe it's erosion.
Others were saying maybe it's carved.
When you get both, you know it's right in the middle and is exactly as good as it
can get.
We made a presentation of this at a national science meeting up in Tennessee.
Glenn Kuban was there, who won Humanist of the Year for explaining these away.
He was on the plane the next morning and in the river that afternoon with a long
iron pole.
And we got several calls saying he's out there with an iron pole and got out there
and by the time we got there it looked like this.
It had just been beaten to pieces.
Of course, we had excellent cast and stereo photographs and hundreds of
photographic documentations, but he was evidently pretty impressed with the
footprint.
As you go further up the trail, this is several tracks ahead, you see
another.
Now there are 134 dinosaur tracks on this platform and 14 human tracks going through
the middle.
And sometimes they are beside and across and just outside, sometimes within.
Here again within.
Notice the three-toed dinosaur track up in the anterior forward portion of the track
but in the back portion it looks like that depressed area is where somebody stepped
on it.
Again, from a side view of that same track, you see the three toes to the right
almost flush and perhaps will be raised with further erosion, but the depressed
portion fits the human foot just perfectly.
When you put your foot in it, it's like a glove.
Now, this one is a right.
What should we have ahead of it?
We should have a left.
Here's the next one and it's right-left for 14.
Looking at a side view of this track, you can see that the dinosaur track is
beside it and of course the sandbag is in the back, it's in the bottom of the river,
it's a lot of work to get to do that.
It's consistently 11 1⁄2 inches and this is an overview of the entire 14 track
trail.
Now, when you get 14 in a right-left pattern consistent in length, you're not
looking at erosion.
And of course it was excavated, most of it, from under the overburden
which eliminates the carving.
Now, you can see some strange things in the rocks that look like wow, maybe it
looks like an Indian head when you go to the cave.
You look up in the clouds and you see wow, that looks like a bird.
Maybe some of these tracks just happen to look like a human foot.
This was a sign I saw up in Oklahoma not long ago.
You look at that and you see well, maybe that's a funny looking cloud but
when you see the rest of it you think somebody's messing with the clouds here.
Because you've got more than one and that's not going to happen.
You look at the old man in the mountain.
That may be erosion, right?
But how do you know that this is not erosion?
Well, if you see four old men in the mountain you've got a pretty good idea,
don't you?
Well, here you've got 14 in a right-left pattern that says hey, I'm sorry,
this is not erosion.
And it's not carved.
This becomes the perfect turvy fossil.
We did the measurements and the analysis.
All of them look at least like a general human footprint consistent in length,
more so than the dinosaur tracks some of which are still being revealed.
Seven of them have toes.
Of course, we've shown you the most dramatic ones.
That's very unusual with fossil footprints.
Mary Leakey's tracks over in Africa, several spreads in National Geographic,
none of them have toes.
Well, you can see the great toe in some, but none individual toes.
You can distinguish right from left in 12 of the 14.
Two of them are just kind of oblong.
And when Glenn Kuban lectures on this subject, guess which two he shows you?
We did a double-blind test at Kansas State University with the psych department
showing pictures.
First, what are these?
And 97% said they're human footprints.
Then we got real rough on the college students.
Tell us if they're rights or lefts.
And 87% got exactly what we predicted.
12 out of 14, that's just about precisely what we expected.
And none of them were consistently different so that you can say it is
consistently rights and lefts where they ought to be.
Now, this is the way you do science.
Dawkins sits behind his desk at Oxford and says, no way.
It's impossible.
And we get out and do the work.
And I think you can see the difference.
This, I think, is the perfect turvy fossil.
You can't fall down a crack, intrusionally bury them.
They can't be carved.
They were excavated from under the overburden.
It's not erosion.
You've got 14 in a right-left pattern.
And I just really enjoy presenting this on the college campus and then sitting back
and saying, okay, now, what's your explanation?
I was at a university up in Tennessee several years ago speaking to a group of
about 50 senior geology students and they turned around after I finished to the head
of the department, okay, what do you have to say?
And he said, of course, we don't know that there weren't dinosaurs back there with
human feet.
And I thought a minute and I said, well, I guess that's right.
It could have been.
I also don't know that there weren't humans back there with dinosaur feet.
Wouldn't that make about as much sense?
I said, wouldn't it be more reasonable to think these things look like dinosaur feet
and were made by dinosaurs and these things look like human feet and were made
by humans?
No, he wouldn't agree.
And I said, well, if they were made by humans would they look any different?
And he just got up and left.
And about half of that, well, a significant portion of that group became
creationists.
But dinosaurs with human feet is their explanation.
Dr. Chuck Finsley, who was curator of the Dallas Museum of Natural History for some
30 years, came down to Glen Rose and looked at it.
He wanted to display some of the dinosaurs we had excavated.
And we made him look at the tracks.
And he got a little upset and left.
Came back about a month later and got upset and left.
Third time down, he said, Dr. Patton, I think I've got an explanation for you.
I can tell you what made these human-looking footprints.
He says, I think they were made by aliens.
Very serious.
And I kind of snickered and he got aggravated.
I said, well, Chuck, if they're made by aliens, I guess they came from a galaxy
far, far away.
They'd be more advanced than we are.
What are they doing running around barefooted?
He left.
But this is the best they can do.
I said, I think you just ought to take the evidence for what it is instead of
desperately trying to explain it away.
It kind of reminds me of the Far Side cartoon by Gary Larson.
Here's Professor Farrington and his controversial theory that dinosaurs were
actually the discarded chicken bones of giant alien picnickers.
That sounds pretty far out to me.
If you want to draw a cartoon, I think the reality would be more like
this.
In the throes of a catastrophic flood, as they were trying to escape,
they were running and these were the ones that missed the boat.
When we exposed this material, and I think solved the riddle of several
of the questions that had been asked, found extra tracks, documented the
right-left pattern, the length and consistency of the trail, many were
pressed with coming up with an answer.
What do you say?
Well, the typical thing they say, just predict it.
Well, you need more evidence.
You can always say that.
You need more evidence.
And they do.
And so in 2000, with the drought in this area, we noticed that this trail that's
coming across what's called the Patton...
the trail that's going across it here, we could see more of it because the water
had gone down.
And so we decided to pump the river dry.
And so we got quite a few pumps and 30-40 people down there pretty regularly for
over a three-month period.
And with a lot of work, a lot of shovels, a lot of movement of dirt and watering a
lot of farmers' fields on either side of the river, we pumped it dry and followed
that trail and exposed the longest consecutive dinosaur trail on the American
continent.
154 dinosaur tracks over 500 feet long and they're not only the longest trail,
but they may be the clearest and most spectacular trail.
The sharp detail is just awesome.
Now, it really infuriated the fella at the state park who had gotten his Ph.D.
studying these tracks that a creationist made such a find right under his nose.
But we know what dinosaur tracks look like and excavated the longest trail on the
American continent.
Only one other in the world longer in Turkmenistan.
There's nothing here that looks like dinosaur tracks at all but when you go up
ahead it crosses this trail of human tracks that are very consistent in length,
right, left pattern, all five toes, instep and heel.
Then we presented that and guess what they said then?
Well, you need more evidence.
And okay, let's try the platform up ahead this time and we moved ahead and this
platform we had to go down three or four layers until we got to the print layer and
sure enough there's about 100 dinosaur tracks on this platform with 15 human
tracks going right through the middle of it.
Different individual, this one was consistently about 10 inches but the
right-left pattern is obvious and we look at a close-up here of the center and we
see two tracks that are slightly raised like the dinosaur footprints but you can
see that they match on either side but the one on the right looks like something
stepped in the back of it, doesn't it?
And it's depressed, it's not raised it came along after the infill had filled in
the other tracks.
Looking at a close-up of the one on the right we'll see there is that duck-shaped
dinosaur track that matches the one next to it perfectly but again the depressed
track within it is just perfect and if we had enough dark you could actually count
the knuckles and the toes here and that's in a sequence of 15 in a right-left
pattern.
OK, want some more evidence?
It just keeps piling up and they keep evading.
I think we have just very exciting evidence to confront the evolutionary
theories here.
We went back to the Burdick track.
This one was one that had to be carved, it was too good to be true because well,
it just looked awfully good so I said is there some way we can tell if this is
carved or not?
Well, when you section across it sometimes as indicated in the question a moment ago
you can see disturbed material underneath the surface and so we sectioned as you can
see several places.
Here is a section at the heel and in the center you can see the displaced disturbed
material.
Is this a carved track?
This is original impression carving would cut across rather than corresponding with
the disturbed material.
We presented this at a science meeting in Dallas and it got rather quiet and then
finally one person said well this is obviously a real track but it must be a
dinosaur track that somebody carved toes on.
And I am glad he did that because then we proceeded to section across the toes as
you can see here and this is a real reach because sometimes you section a dinosaur
track and you see nothing.
But we were lucky with the fine grain limestone preserved a lot of detail.
Here is a section across the toes and especially there at the great toe you can
see the following contours rather than cutting across them.
Looking at a close up here and actually there are structures under each of the
toes but very dramatic at the great toe and so we verify even at the toes that
this is not a carved track.
Then we get a new set of objections.
They say well but it's too broad at the front, it's too narrow at the heel and
look at the center, it's raised.
Tracks are not supposed to be raised in the middle.
And of course they had no idea what tracks are supposed to look like and we didn't
either and so we went out and did some science.
We got some junior high kids to make some tracks in the concrete and we found out
that standing tracks and walking tracks and running tracks are pretty easy to
distinguish.
They all look different.
And what we are looking at here is a running track.
Here is a little twelve year old girl that made these tracks running both toward and
away from us.
Looking at two here going in opposite directions we can see the broad front here
and the toes that are spread out, the narrow heel and look at the raised
center.
When you are running you push off with your toes and so you have a broader front
and you rock over the center and leave the...
We didn't know that but what we learned indicated that if it were different it
would be wrong.
The Burdick track is a very good running track.
Difficult even to make one that good today but the same general configuration.
Also in the area we had a large cat track.
There were seven of these.
Dawkins said a large mammal skull I think a large mammal foot would fit the bill as
well.
This one is large.
We talked about large animals the other evening.
This one is nine inches across.
Big cat.
And that would utterly destroy according to Dawkins criteria.
We sectioned here across this which they would have to say was carved.
And again you see the following contours across the pad of the cat track showing
that this is not carved either.
This is a turvy fossil.
All of this of course around Glen Rose.
Let's go down to Sonora, Texas.
Here is a sequence of three tracks.
One of them you can see very clearly is not just erosion in a rock but very much
like a human track.
There are nine of them in a right-left pattern that can be followed there at
Sonora.
Up in the panhandle at Stennett, Texas there has been on display for about
30 years a rock slab there in the center of the courthouse that obviously looks
like a human foot in the Permian rock.
This is supposedly 100 million years older than the ones at Glen Rose.
Well this has to be carved.
It's just too clear.
The little small foot and then the big one.
But look at the thin layer that's revealed here by the broken section and compare it
with the depth of the track looking sideways and you can see that the depth is
considerably deeper than that little thin layer.
And if it were carved, what would happen to that little thin layer?
It would penetrate, wouldn't it?
And it didn't.
So we can see good indication this is not a carved track.
We have found out where this came from, the area.
We've done a lot of research.
We're doing an excavation beginning in two weeks there at Stennett and hope to find
some more in place.
But we don't find them just at Glen Rose by any means.
This one is in New Mexico, again in the Permian, even worse for the evolutionists
than the situation at Glen Rose.
The photograph is a little bit deceitful in that you wouldn't see that picture if
you walked up on it.
It's an extremely shallow track and you have to have it wet and the sun angle just
right in order to get the pretty picture like this.
But when you do, you can see this very obviously is a clear track.
But it's one that is like the kind of footprints you'd leave when you're walking
with a wet foot on a tile floor.
You're not sinking down that much.
You get the hourglass shape with the little dots at the end.
But we recognize that shape, don't we?
And that's obviously a turvy fossil.
In Turkmenistan, that we mentioned earlier, there are a lot of dinosaur
tracks.
This is from Pravda, under the headline Human Footprints Found on Dinosaurs
Plateau.
Turkmenian Plateau contains more than 3,000 footprints but among the most
mysterious fact is that among the footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of
bare human feet are found.
We've contacted a number of Russian scientists.
They don't like to talk about it.
Not all of them.
Some of them actually do and have gotten in trouble as a result of it.
We had this fellow who had published Science and USSR agreed to carry us there.
He was head of the geology department at the University of Turkmenistan.
I got the visa.
It wasn't cheap.
Ready to go and they fired him and he had to leave the country.
When we applied for the permits, they found out we were coming.
They don't like that to be known.
But in this journal, he says if we speak about the human footprint and notice he's
still just a little bit equivocating here.
It was made by a human-like animal.
He's not really sticking his neck out there but obviously so.
Incredibly the footprint is on the same plateau where there are dinosaur tracks.
He's led three expeditions there to investigate.
He has offered to carry us sneaking across the border from Kazakhstan where he is
now.
It's about six miles from Afghanistan and we decided that we're going to wait a
little while.
This amazing fossil is from the Glen Rose area.
This is my daughter's finger underneath.
We recognize what that looks like but there are lots of rocks that just happen
to look like things accidentally.
And so we wanted to see if there's any interior structure.
Sometimes you find that in fossils sometimes you don't.
And so we sectioned here at a severe angle to get more information to see if there's
any interior structure there.
And sure enough, right at the intersection, right where it's supposed to
be, we see the bone material in the center of this fossil finger.
This is Dr. Dale Peterson of Oklahoma City.
The last time I heard him lecture on this it was an hour and a half lecture and you
don't want to know all about that but he did the CAT scans and traced ligaments
from one end to the other.
And he has absolutely no doubt as a professional anatomist that this is a
human finger.
A little further south, a hundred miles south of Glen Rose, we go near London,
Texas down toward Junction, Fredericksburg in that vicinity.
And in this picturesque spot, a number of years ago a gentleman was fishing and
looked at a rock and saw something sticking out of it and picked it up and
hit it and lo and behold, it's got a hammer in it.
And the rock from this area, you look on all the geologic maps this is lower
Cretaceous, the same formation at Glen Rose but lowered down in the formation,
supposed to be 140 million.
But this is steel with an iron hammer.
It's not hammer steel, it's a different type no hammer is sold today made of this.
The wooden handle is partially coalified with quartz and calcite crystals in it
encased in the Cretaceous sandstone.
I don't think the dinosaurs made that but it's found in the rocks with the
dinosaurs.
Up in Oklahoma, we found this iron pot which was in the coal that's supposedly
300 million years old.
According to the evolution it's been around maybe a million, two million
depending on how you define it.
But 295 million, you've got an iron pot.
And this is the affidavit of the fellow who was working in the utility department
there stoking the big furnace and took a sledgehammer and broke the coal open and
out fell the pot with the cast and the mold on either side.
Not supposed to be there.
Similar situation here with this bell that was found in North Carolina a number of
years ago encased in coal again with the cast and mold on either side.
A close up shows that this is not like things that we know about today but it's
it was encased in the coal.
We have not only an affidavit from him but he passed a lie detector test with flying
colors that his story was true.
And so the evidence just accumulates.
Travel with me to Utah.
This is near the Four Corners area near Blanding, Utah under the arches at Natural
Bridges National Monument.
And here Dr. Swift down there who was working with me is pointing up where the
area is to a protected area where the Anasazi Indians did their petroglyphs
about a thousand years ago according to the park rangers.
And you climb up there on that little ledge and look at that and you see a
number of the petroglyphs.
It's covered with heavy desert varnish so that it's difficult to photograph but
right over my head you see the Anasazi warrior and then the snakes.
But then right beside me if we highlight the significant area you can see the
dinosaur which even the secular archaeologists have acknowledged sure
looks like a dinosaur and covered with the varnish so that the antiquity is really
not questioned.
We go not too far from there but over into Colorado we see the three horned dinosaur
with the frill on its back.
It looks more like a triceratops than the people.
They look like people.
This is done by the Fremont Indians who were contemporary with the Anasazi.
And then we go to the Grand Canyon.
We see what appears to be in the shape of maybe an Allosaurus.
Someone shot him in the tail which shows you what it looks like if you break
through that heavy desert varnish which indicates its antiquity.
There was a write up by a representative for the American Museum of Natural History
in 1924 of this site describing Indians drawing dinosaurs though they wouldn't do
that today.
Not because the evidence is not there they just wouldn't do it.
We travel down to Peru and this is Dr. Javier Cabrera who was 20 years head of
the Department of Medicine at the University of Lima retired to be cultural
anthropologist in Inca.
Ancestor of the Conquistadors.
Has a big 300 year old castle there on the town square and has a collection of Inca
burial stones that begun to be made by his father back in the 30's.
He's continued that collection.
These are stones that are buried in the tombs with the Incas and they have scenes
carved over them, most of them.
He has a collection now of over 11,000 of these burial stones.
About a third of them are the most disgusting pornography you've ever seen.
But about a third of them have dinosaurs on them.
Here is one in place in the tomb.
But looking at a close up of these stones you can see the rather artistic rendition
of the dinosaur.
Interestingly this one has the dermal frills on its back when Mr. Sinclair did
his sign with the dinosaur.
He didn't know that it had frills on its back but they did it right.
This was written up in Geology Magazine in 1992 for the first time when we found them
well preserved.
But there are thousands of these stones.
This is one of the larger ones.
Again rather artistically rendered.
Looking at a close up you can see the dinosaur in the upper right hand corner
with the man foot in his mouth.
All shapes and sizes and types of stones and styles of rendering certainly not done
by the same individual.
Some of them are almost oriental looking and some of them rather literal looking.
Here is one with a number of different species on it.
But thousands of them.
We have a number of others who have collected as well.
We have a collection at the Aeronautical Museum in Lima.
There were hundreds here.
There are 40 that are left.
They have been raided.
I think sold maybe illegally.
But you can still see the stones some of the ones that are not as elaborate and
beautiful as in the Cabrera collection but obviously recognizable.
Still in the National Aeronautical Museum there is also a display in the Naval
Museum and at least two other museums that I know of in Peru.
Some of them are still being excavated.
This was one that was excavated in 2006 that is in the artifact room.
It has two dinosaurs on it.
Slightly different type stone from Cabrera's.
Raised instead of incised but still the same general picture.
Also in the tombs you find burial cloths with the same kind of motif there.
Obviously the big claws and the teeth representing dinosaurs.
You see it on their pottery.
That is relatively easy to date.
These are dated about 2500 years ago.
These are the Moshi pots.
The style is well known and documented and represented in the National Museum.
This one is in the National Museum in Lima.
It says circa 2500 years ago.
Up in northern Peru you have a good deal of gold in some of the ruins and tombs.
This is a death mask but look on either side of the face.
Again the dermal frills across the back.
The tail curling up over and the huge teeth.
These people were seeing dinosaurs 2000, 3000 years ago.
Now we are told that we have known what dinosaurs looked like for maybe well the
first ones found in 1820 we did not know what they looked like very well.
The restorations were silly.
After the turn of the century, early 1900s we got a fair idea and really
not an excellent idea.
Well, 1992 we learned the dinosaur's type had frills on its back.
These people did not show a great asian in learning.
They got it right, right from the start.
Likewise in Mexico.
We made a number of trips there in central highlands near Acombro in the state of
Guanajuato.
Dr. Swift and I have been down there a number of times investigating.
It took that many times to get through all the bureaucracy.
When we got there, they were being hidden in the back of the police department.
But it was a collection made by Waldemar Juhlsrud back in the early 1900s of some
30,000 ceramic figurines about 10% of which are of dinosaurs.
But a wide range of animals and creatures.
Some of the brontosaurus type were standing up.
We didn't know that until recently.
Bacher's book Dinosaur Heresies published in 1986 was really the first one who
suggested that.
And then of course Spielberg convinced us all they stood up.
But this is exactly the way they are rendered by the artist.
And these date to well before the time of Christ from several sources.
Again, there are thousands of them and the styles indicate far more than one artist.
One of the professors from the University of Texas at Arlington who is an art
professor said there were at least 100 different artists represented in the
collection.
That would be his estimate.
This is my wife's favorite.
Obviously if you've got one that looks like a dinosaur a man did it.
But sewing them together is interesting.
Man and dinosaur obviously live together.
You pick up any of the dinosaur books today and how does it start out?
Millions and millions of years ago.
And then the second paragraph says no man ever saw a dinosaur.
And that's just like you can't write a dinosaur book unless you start that way.
It ain't so.
The year before last we traveled to Cambodia following evidence that had been
forwarded to us by one of the tour guides there who had seen our website.
And we had done some research and confirmed a good bit of what he was
telling us.
In the upper part of Cambodia we see the ancient Khmer Empire had built just
spectacular temples.
Maybe the largest and most beautiful in the world.
And one of the greatest monument builders was Jayavarman VII.
He is almost idolized.
This is a picture that I took there in Phnom Penh of the Buddha-like pose.
He began to rule in 1181 and built to prom and dedicated it in 1186.
This was dedicated to his mother.
It was a Buddhist monastery.
And so we know who and when and all the specifics.
Well, on the stone in this temple a very beautiful picturesque place, you see
carvings and there are stone carvings that cover just about every square inch of it.
But just inside the front entrance in the corner here that the arrow points to you
can see a series of animals from the jungle.
And notice in the series there is a perfect Stegosaurus in a temple from over
800 years ago.
And we are supposed to have known what dinosaurs looked like for about 150 and
then have been gone 65 million.
I believe there is something wrong with that story.
I don't want any comments about two fossils here or two dinosaurs.
There is just one.
But it is more proof of the co-occurrence of humans and dinosaurs.
Let's think about some significance here of this acknowledged by the evolutionists
before we conclude.
Louis Jacobs from SMU is president of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology.
One of the most representative, respected paleontologists in the country.
And in his book, Quest for the African Dinosaur, he brings up the subject of the
co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs.
He said, such an association would dispel an earth with vast antiquity.
The entire history of creation including the Day of Rest could be accommodated in
the seven biblical days of the Genesis myth.
Evolution would be vanquished.
Here is the implication, the significance if you were to document this.
And of course, I think he is right.
We go back to the statement by Stephen Stanley that we referred to earlier,
the topsy-turvy fossil man.
And look at a fuller context of his quote.
He said, there is an infinite variety of ways in which since 1859 the general
concept of evolution might have been demolished.
Consider the fossil record, little known resource in Darwin's day.
The unequivocal discovery of a fossil population of horses in Precambrian rocks
would disprove evolution.
More generally, any topsy-turvy sequence of fossils would force us to rethink our
theory and yet not a single one has come to light as Darwin recognized a single
geographic inconsistency would have nearly the same power of destruction.
But these are his terms, destruction, destroy, disprove.
That is the implication if you find humans and dinosaurs together specifically.
A single geographic inconsistency.
It is interesting to listen to what the evolutionists themselves say about what
this would mean.
Stanley says it would disprove evolution.
Dawkins, referring to another find, says evolution would be utterly destroyed.
And then Jacob says evolution would be vanquished.
Now that is not my analysis.
That is the leading evolutionist across the country.
That is what they say such evidence means.
If you got a single geographic inconsistency, well I believe we have
shown more than a single geographic inconsistency.
The Malachite man with the ten perfectly modern human skeletons in the same
formation as Dinosaur National Monument, fossil footprints in Texas and New Mexico
and Turkmenistan, three different places in Texas.
The dinosaur petroglyphs, Peruvian Mexican dinosaur artifacts, the burial stones,
the cat track and hammer.
That is a whole lot more than a single geographic inconsistency.
And I think the implication is just as they suggested.
It demolishes.
It is... the column itself is an abstraction that is put together based on
the assumption of evolution.
Useful as a model that we can test against the real world and when we do we find it
fails.
It is contradicted.
It is not proof.
It is demonstration of what ought to be that isn't.
And let's conclude with a statement by Nova who came to Glen Rose, looked at the
same pictures that you looked at.
The people that photographed it and interviewed us were excited.
They thought they had some earth shaking news and went back and their editor
wouldn't allow them to publish it.
They did publish a brief presentation called God, Darwin and the Dinosaurs and
mentioned dinosaur footprints side by side with humans.
Finding them would counter evidence, they said, that humans evolved long after
the dinosaurs became extinct, which is of course what is taught in the textbooks.
It would counter that and back up the claim that all species including man were
created at one time.
Nova knows what that means.
And therefore they said in this blurb, there is nothing at Glen Rose that looks
anything like a footprint, a human footprint.
Now you can decide for yourself whether that is true.
If there is something there that does look like and we have shown that there are
human footprints there and that is the most reasonable conclusion, then this is
what it means according to the evolutionists themselves.
The
world is intrigued by fossils.
I have always enjoyed the fossil digs, carrying the young people with me and
watching their eyes light up as they find something really significant.
Watch them imagine these creatures as they lived in the not too distant past,
I believe.
The fossil record, many have been convinced, says evolution and many
Christians are intimidated by that.
I think the actual record says exactly the opposite.
I think when you look at billions and billions of dead things and rocks laid
down by water all over the world, you are seeing a record of judgment rather
than a record of evolution.
This is the alternative view.
But we want to look at the evidence from the fossil record today.
If there is evidence of evolution then this would be where you would find it in
the fossil record.
And we are told over and over again that the fossil record actually proves
evolution.
It is the critical evidence.
S.M.
Stanley from Johns Hopkins University says it's doubtful whether in the absence of
fossils, the idea of evolution would represent anything more than an outrageous
hypothesis.
He says the fossil record and only the fossil record provides direct evidence of
major sequential changes in the Earth's biota.
This is where it's at if you please.
If there is proof it would have to be here.
And I hope you remember that statement.
We'll refer to it later when we begin to see that that evidence does not favor
evolution and that they are without the fossil evidence as far as support for
evolution.
Let's also remember a point that's made by John Horner.
He's the paleontologist whose life was reflected in the Jurassic Park.
He was the real life character represented as digging up fossils in Montana.
He says paleontology is a historical science.
A science based on circumstantial evidence after the fact.
We can never reach hard and fast conclusions.
These days it's easy to go through school for a that some sciences are historical or
are by nature inconclusive.
Science involves what you can repeat.
That is when you reach scientific proof conclusions in science it's as a result of
experimentation, observation repeatability.
You can't do that when you're evolving from an ape to a man for example.
That's not repeated in the laboratory.
And so this is historical.
The evidence, the only evidence, the only conclusive evidence is not going
to provide conclusive proof.
However, we do make predictions and we can learn a great deal.
And it is a scientific investigation when we look at the evidence and compare the
models.
And one of the ways to compare models is to look at the predictions that are made
by the two models.
When we consider the fossil record there are very obvious opposite predictions that
are made by the two models.
If you are an evolutionist you would predict a simple beginning, a gradual
progression upward linked through things that are kin.
This predicts the nature of the record in the beginning and then the creation model
would predict the opposite, the complex abrupt beginning.
They would be diverse from the start and we should be able to look at the fossil
record and tell the difference.
It should be relatively simple.
As we look at the continuing record there would be predictions of similarities by
the evolutionist, indicating kinship but they would be branching similarities as
kinship would necessarily imply and an allied continuum.
While on the other hand the creationist would expect that there would be
similarities but they would be similarities not branching but of a mosaic
pattern where the artist would use a blue tile here and then a blue tile there where
he needs it similar but not connected as a designer would do.
Again there would be similarities but they would be separate and distinct and stasis
would be the order of the day rather than continuing change.
Stasis status quo stays the same.
Fancy word used by evolutionists and by many scientists.
Now as we look at the two models and as we see the different predictions and I tell
you what the fossil record is you might say well you're prejudiced.
I would tell you that it favors the predictions of the evolutionist but we're
going to allow the evolutionist to describe the evidence for us.
The quotes that we'll be using will be from the antagonistic witness and some
people misunderstand this concept.
They say well you're not being fair.
You're using people that disagree with you but that's the point.
That provides even stronger better evidence.
For example when you're in court and you have a friendly witness who testifies on
your behalf and he says the accused is honest and he has no reasonable motive to
lie that'll help.
But if on the other hand you have an antagonistic witness who makes these
points then the evidence is much stronger when he says the accused is honest there's
no reasonable motive to lie.
In other words when you have friendly testimony that helps but if you have
acknowledgements contrary to interest you have much greater weight given to the
testimony.
And the evidence that we're going to be giving then would be those who are
testifying contrary to their interest.
They're quotes from antagonistic witnesses.
We want you to understand they're from devout believers but they're believers in
evolution.
They are men of great faith but they're men of faith in evolution.
We'll begin with Richard Dawkins who would certainly qualify as an evolutionist a
creation hater I think is a fair statement and we'll see statements from him that
justify that.
He's from Cambridge.
He wrote the book The Blind Watchmaker.
In it he describes the beginning of the fossil record.
He says and we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution the very
first time they appear.
It is as though they were just planted there without any evolutionary history.
Needless to say this appearance of sudden planting has delighted the creationist.
Yes, well I would plead guilty there.
They begin he has faith that it's an evolutionary appearance but it's not
because of an evolutionary record.
That's not there.
It appears without that record.
Without any evolutionary history.
And that's of course exactly what we would predict.
Notice the depiction by National Geographic in this page, Explosion of
Life, describing the lowest, the beginning layer of the fossil record that is where
the fossils began in abundance in the Cambrian the bottom of the geologic
column.
This is an explosion of life.
And that's a term that's typical in describing that.
We'll see more about why that's justified in a moment.
One of the more typical fossils found there would be the trilobite.
Probably more trilobites than anything else there in the Cambrian.
Way back in 1974 here we see a description of trilobite eyes.
You typically don't see this in the textbooks.
But here in Science News they may have been superior to current living animals
that is in their eyes.
They had in principle perfect vision.
They possessed the most sophisticated eyes ever produced by nature.
They looked like they were designed by a physicist.
Now, again I didn't write this, but if I had written it I couldn't have
done better.
This is the most typical fossil in the lowest part of the geologic column,
the beginning of the fossil record.
And we see as sophisticated a part of our anatomy as you can find and it's superior.
Notice the description by Stephen Gould of Harvard, one of the more famous
evolutionists of our time, recently deceased.
He says the Cambrian explosion occurred at a geological moment and we have reasons to
think that all major anatomical designs may have made their evolutionary
appearance at that time.
Now, it was an evolutionary appearance but all of the anatomy designs of anatomy he
would use that term, appeared right from the beginning.
That's at the start.
Not only the phylum Chordata itself, but all of its major divisions.
Chordata, that's the division that we're in, the animals with backbones,
and all of the major divisions.
And where is that?
That's at the beginning.
Now, I couldn't have written the story better myself.
Continuing, he says, since the so-called Cambrian explosion no new phyla of animals
have entered the fossil record.
So you have them all right at the beginning and no new ones since.
Now, what does that sound like, honestly?
As you look at the different predictions made by the creationists and the
evolutionists, which one is served best by the evidence?
Here's a summary of statements that the evolutionists make regarding the beginning
of the fossil record.
It's complex, it's sudden, right at the start.
Advanced, as if they were planted there, according to Dawkins.
Land plants, we have 60 genera of land plants.
Many books will say that in the Cambrian there's nothing but shallow seas
everywhere.
We have fossils of land plants, that's obviously not accurate.
Vascular plants, six different groups of the woody type plants.
And then all the major anatomical designs, the Chordata, all of its major divisions.
We have vertebrates from a number of states across the country, and the article
documenting that was published in 78.
This is not new news.
Vertebrates, animals with backbones from all of these places across the country,
since the Cambrian explosion, no new phyla.
I'm sorry.
I think it's obvious which model is served best, and this is not my description.
This is the description of the evolutionists, the antagonistic witness
about the most critical part of the fossil record, the beginning of that record.
And furthermore, not only do we find complex animals right from the start,
animals that would live at the bottom of the ocean, I think it's the beginning of a
flood deposit, but we find that those animals are distinct and separate right
from the start.
Quoting here from Discover magazine, demonstrates that the large animal phyla
of today were already present in the early Cambrian and that they were distinct from
each other as they are today.
Menagerie of clam cousins, sponges, segmented worms, other invertebrates that
would be vaguely familiar to any scuba diver.
If you go down to the bottom of the ocean, that's what you find in the Cambrian.
But it's there today, and they're distinct and separate then as today.
But in the textbooks, you see a very different representation.
It's always illustrated with the simple things at the bottom.
The complex things are not until you get to the top and they're all graduated and
connected in this branching pattern.
That's not what the fossils say.
And if you're interested in the implications of the fossil record,
you can just X this out.
This is not the record of the fossils.
Stephen Gould says this very plainly.
He says, the evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips
and nodes of their branches, not the evidence of the fossils.
The rest is inference, he says, however reasonable.
But it is not from the fossils that you find these textbook type trees that show
the graduated progression.
In fact, if you turn the tree upside down, you have a closer representation.
He says it starts broad and goes downhill.
This sweep of anatomical diversity is reached a maximum right after the initial
diversification of multicellular animals.
A fancy way of saying we had more diverse anatomy from the start.
He goes on to say, the later history preceded by elimination, not expansion.
It's a downhill process from a more complex and broad and diverse beginning.
If you look at what Gould calls the cone of diversity, you see what's predicted in
the fossil record, gradually starting from a simple beginning and getting more
diverse and complex as you proceed through time.
The actual truth, and these are diagrams that you'll find in Gould's book,
is like this.
We had more in the past, it's gone downhill to the point where we are now.
But compare that again with what we see in the textbook.
This gradual upward progression, which is the very thing that he says is
not in the fossil record.
Well, if this is not in the fossil record, where did it come from?
What's the source of this kind of representation?
Again, let's allow the evolutionist to describe that for us.
Here in Dotton Batten's book, Evolution of the Earth, that I was taught from at two
different major state universities, we have arranged the groups in a
traditional way with the simplest forms first.
How did they get that way?
Well, we arranged them that way with the progressively more complex groups
following.
The particular arrangement is arbitrary and depends on what definition of
complexity you wish to choose.
Now, this may be somewhat oversimplifying and we don't want to misrepresent.
This is their statement, but they go on on the same page to describe really the basis
for this.
It's not the fossil record.
It's arbitrary.
It's something that they arranged, but the arrangement does have logic to it.
He says things are alike because they are related.
The less they look alike, the further removed they are from the common ancestor.
And so this similarity allows them to arrange this into the family tree.
Well, it's not that simple because it's certain similarities excluding other
similarities and then, well, there's a lot of ignoring of evidence that goes on in
that process, but this is the way it's represented.
And I've been in class where I've been scolded.
Don't you know that kin, cousins, brothers and sisters look alike?
And, well, yes, we understand that.
We see that as a possible explanation.
And when we look at apes and men, for example, can there be any denial that
there is a very dramatic similarity here?
This is obvious.
We can see dissimilarities, but honestly, the similarities are much more dramatic.
The question is why?
Well, the evolutionist seldom asks that question.
He just knows that it's because of common ancestors.
But that's not necessarily the only explanation.
In fact, I believe there's a better explanation when we look at all the
similarities.
You drive down the street and you see houses that appear similar because they're
cousins.
Right.
Well, no, that's not the case.
They had a common designer.
That's a much better explanation.
And when we look at the record of anatomy, when we look at animals in the animal
kingdom, we see similarities.
We're often referred to the pendactyl form of the vertebrate hand.
And yes, that's obvious.
But again, why?
You can explain it in terms of common ancestry or in terms of common designer.
Actually, common designer doesn't work.
That is, it works much better here.
Common genetics doesn't work because if they were from common genetics,
they would come from the same parts of the embryo.
The embryo would develop this way as the beginnings of the hand would develop and
it would be the same in the rabbit as in the pigeon and in the frog.
And we see the results being similar.
But if it's from common genetics, it ought to be from common beginnings in
the embryo.
And that's not the case.
In the newt, it's from segments two through five.
In the man, it's from segments 13 through 18.
That is, that segment in the embryo produces the hand.
It's a different segment in the embryo that produces the hand in the newt.
And from the lizard, it's six through nine.
It doesn't appear to be from common genetics.
Common designer seems to work better and there are other reasons for that as well.
The argument from similarity we want to spend some time in.
We're talking about the fossil record, but the only way that fossils mean
anything in terms of creation or evolution is if you infer something and for the
evolutionist, it's being inferred from similarity.
And this principle of similarity is what is the ballgame.
That's what makes them say something besides dead things in rocks.
Similarities, though, lead us astray in many instances.
There were arguments made in the past, for example, from chromosomes.
We look at the order that's indicated here.
Humans have forty-six.
Penicillium, two.
The opossum, twenty-two.
Okay, it looks like an evolutionary progression here.
See, the similarity in the order shows a progression upward toward man.
Until we look at the rest of the story and now then this argument is while it's still
in a few textbooks, it's generally been dropped because we find, yes, human has
forty-six but the chimp has more.
Forty-six.
The fern has four hundred and eighty.
The turkey has eighty-two.
Well, that doesn't look quite like the evolutionist would predict and so
typically that's when you look at the whole picture, it begins to look a little
different.
Sometimes we're told we need to look at the amount of DNA and that would show an
evolutionary progression.
Compared with humans, we see the euglena has about the same amount of DNA as we do.
The liverwort, a moss-like plant, has eighteen times as much and here's a
salamander that has twenty-six times as much.
Well, that didn't help a whole lot either in terms of supporting evolution.
This argument from similarity has been used since the beginning and back shortly
after Darwin's time, Haeckel came up with this famous argument that's been in
thousands of textbooks and it touts the similarity of embryos in the beginning of
their development and we see up at the top of the chart that these embryos are drawn
to look very, very similar but they develop into very different organisms,
the pig and the fish and the salamander and the man.
And that's been shown in textbooks and I've had people say, well, this
development from embryo, they came from the same kind of embryo, shows an
evolutionary progression.
I don't think it necessarily follows, even if this were true, but it isn't.
You've been lied to, unfortunately.
This is the statement that we see emphasized here in the Times in London,
the headlines just a few years ago, embryonic liar.
It shows the embryos up at the top as drawn by Haeckel, very similar back in
Darwin's time.
And in fact, Darwin referred to this argument and said he thought it was one of
the best that he knew of.
But compared with what's at the bottom, we see the actual pictures of these
embryos that are supposed to be represented in the drawings and they don't
look similar at all.
And so the Times just says the fellow is lying about this.
We look in New Scientist, who reported the same kind of thing.
Here is fraud rediscovered.
And we see the drawings down below and the actual embryos up at the top.
This is fraud and that's the only way to describe it.
Notice the quotation from New Scientist.
Although Haeckel confessed and was convicted of fraud.
Now this is not my assessment.
This is what we read in New Scientist.
He was convicted of fraud at the University of Jena.
The drawings persist.
That's the real mystery, Richardson said.
And he's complaining about this in New Scientist.
And certainly they do persist.
Here is one of the more common biology textbooks that's used in our schools
today.
And sure enough, right there with their bare face hanging out is the same drawings
that Haeckel used 100 years ago to deceive.
These similarities don't exist.
Of course, there are similarities.
Those don't.
We're often referred to the similarity between apes and men with the DNA.
And we're told the genome of ape and man is 99% similar.
And this is supposed to prove that we came from a common ancestor.
Well, this has been grossly exaggerated and corrected, though not in headlines.
Here back in 2004 in Nature, they said they found 83% differences in the 231
genes that they compared between ape and men when they're looking at the amino acid
sequence of the proteins.
And then said 20% showed significant structural changes.
Well, that's obviously considerably more than 1%.
And as they pointed out, we've seen a much higher percentage of change than people
speculated.
And so this has been misrepresented.
But let's just assume that that were true.
And we often hear it repeated.
It isn't, as we've seen.
But we're told specifically there's 1.6% difference in the genome of the ape and
man.
But think about that for a moment.
There are 3 billion nucleotides in the genome.
3 billion bits of information.
That's 48 million nucleotides when we're talking about 1.6%.
Now how much difference would 48 million nucleotides make?
Well, think about that in terms of cystic fibrosis, a terrible disease that is
relentlessly fatal.
That involves not 1% or 1.6%, but 1 billionth of 1% of the genome.
That's 3 nucleotides not 48 million.
With sickle cell anemia, we're looking at 1 third of a billionth of 1%.
That's 1 nucleotide.
And yet we're told that it's only 1.6%.
Of course, that's 48 million nucleotides when one produces a fatal disease,
sickle cell anemia, and 3 produces cystic fibrosis.
You're going to change 48 million and it doesn't matter.
It's not much difference.
You randomly change 48 million nucleotides and you have obvious disaster.
There are dramatic similarities.
And when we look, for example, at sheep.
Here is from a news report back in 2000.
Sue Galloway, University of Ontago and University of Finland.
Sheep are 98% the same.
Our genes are the same, we're told.
And then mice here is reported in the National Human Genome Research Project.
Overall, mice and humans share virtually the same set of genes.
This was in 2006.
On the average, and speaking of an average here, coding regions, the genomes are 85%
identical.
Some are 99% identical with mice.
Well, we're proving more than the evolutionist is intending to prove here
when we're looking at similarities.
I think common design does a better job.
Thinking about the implications, the logic involved here, what does
similarity prove?
You look at these two fish, they appear similar.
What does it prove?
Well, actually, neither one of them are fish.
This one is a reptile and then this one is a mammal, the one at the bottom.
Neither one of them are fish.
Both of them are similar to fish.
None of the, neither the reptile, the mammal, or the fish are kin,
but they look very similar, proving well, we just leave those out when it comes to
lining up the tree.
And then we look at the poor critter represented here, the platypus,
who's kin to almost everybody, according to this interpretation.
We see that he has, he's like a bird, he's like mammals, he's like a paddlefish,
a mammal, and just all kinds of similarities.
The duck and fur like a beaver, he's kin to everybody.
The old adage, that which proves too much proves nothing, is, I think, very apropos
at this point.
When we find similarities that don't count, that you don't look at,
that you ignore, then that's called parallelisms.
And that's not giving a solution to the problem, that's just naming the problem.
And that's typical.
Notice the statement here by Dr. Young, professor at Oxford.
He refers to the fact there are similar features and they appear in distinct
lines, and it's so common, it's almost a rule.
Any detailed study of any group, this is going to confuse when you try to
line them up because you've got to eliminate those that are kin, that is,
those that aren't kin, but are very similar.
And you're unable to distinguish, he says, those that are parallel and those
that are descended.
Well, what it amounts to is, if it fits the scenario of evolution, then they'll
use the similarities.
If it doesn't fit, then it's parallel and you don't use it.
And that's not science.
When you look at all of the picture, we saw the chromosomes a moment ago.
When you just look at part of the picture, then you can tell just about any tail you
want.
But when you look at the whole picture, it's very different.
We're often referred to the blood serum of the chimpanzee, and yes, it's very
similar.
And if the right antiserum is used, yes, you can actually interchange and use
this as a human being.
But, when you look at milk chemistry, we see a significant difference with the
chimpanzee.
Our closest kin there turns out to be the donkey, which again doesn't fit the
scenario the evolutionist would predict.
In terms of cholesterol that we're all interested in, well, the garter snake has
cholesterol just like we do.
In terms of foot structure, we're interested in that in our efforts down at
Glen Rose.
As we look at the fossil footprints, we're looking for animals that might have
made this.
Sometimes we're told maybe an ape made them.
Well, an ape has a hand for a foot.
He doesn't have a foot like ours, but the glacial bear has a foot almost
identical.
If you put it as a mirror image, the thumb's big toe is on the outside
instead of the inside.
And, of course, he has claws and he's a quadruped.
But, if you remove the claws and put it in a mirror and remove the flesh,
wow, it's just virtually identical, unlike the ape.
In terms of tear enzyme, lo and behold, the chicken has a very complex enzyme,
lidosome, just like we do.
Designed, I think, to attack the bacteria.
We need it in our eyes.
The chicken needs it in the egg.
And here's that mosaic pattern where the designer uses the blue tile here where he
wants it and the blue tile there where he wants it.
Yes, similarities, but not in a branching pattern.
When you look at all of the picture, you see that branching pattern does not
describe the similarities that we're looking at.
In terms of blood antigen A, lo and behold, the butterbean has blood antigen A
like we do and wow, brain hormone, the cockroach has a brain hormone just
like we do.
Here's a statement from Discover magazine saying, don't squash that roach,
he may be your cousin.
We're told the roach has a brain hormone just like ours, identical, it is the same.
Now, they don't really put that in this tree and use that to line up the
similarities.
They leave out significant similarities to paint whatever picture they want.
There was a cartoon back in Darwin's time that I think clearly illustrates this
point.
You begin with a pig and change that pig just gradually and you can finally wind up
looking like a bull.
And that bull continues to change just a little bit and it's obvious then that man
evolved from the pig by way of the bull.
And here's the proof.
It's scientifically proved.
See the diagram?
It's the same kind of diagram that you see in the textbooks that's supposed to prove,
supposed to be scientific evidence.
You just line them up.
See how they line up?
What have you proved?
Well, you're looking at similarities, ignoring other similarities and lining
them up according to the scenario.
Now, this may make an interesting model that you can then test, but it's not
proof.
And don't look at it as proof when you see that in the textbooks.
Summarizing then in our first session on the fossils, this is the evidence.
Without it, it's just an outrageous hypothesis as Stanley says.
But when we look at the critical beginning of the fossil record, it's complex,
it is abrupt, it is diverse.
We have all of the major phyla right at the beginning.
There have been none new since.
The trees of life in the textbooks are from selected similarities.
They're not from the fossils.
They're not from embryology.
They're not from genetics.
And the similarities that are used to build the trees reveal a mosaic pattern,
not a branching pattern.
Now when we look at that picture, the critical evidence is much more in
favor of the creation model than the evolution model.
It fits the facts best as described by the antagonistic witness.
And so you can see why I like to talk about the fossils.
I think they speak very clearly of a sudden complex beginning, not gradual
progression over millions of years.
The fossil record provides positive evidence for a sudden complex beginning,
as opposed to a gradual sequence developing over millions of years.
I think the creationist can delight in what the fossils tell us.
The evolutionists sometimes try to intimidate and tell us that's in favor of
evolution, but when you look at what the experts have to say about the matter,
you find that's really not the case at all.
In the first session, we showed the nature of the beginning of the fossil record,
the sudden complex beginning, the distinct separate types right from the start.
Arranged similarities tell us of a tree, but they do not come from the fossil
record.
They're in spite of the fossil record.
But if we look at the fossil record in general, after we get past the beginning,
just ignoring that problem, how do we see evolution as we look at the fossils that
we dig up?
Well, we would need to be able to see transitional forms in order to see
evolution.
Things changing from one to the other, and that would be in the form of the
transitions.
What we see actually is described as stasis according to Stephen Gould,
again one of the leading experts in evolution in our country from Harvard.
He says every paleontologist knows that most species don't change.
Now, of course, evolution is change, but most species don't do that,
he says.
That's bothersome, of course, to the evolutionist.
That brings terrible distress.
I regard the failure, he says, writing in Natural History, to find a
clear vector of progress in life's history as one of the most puzzling facts of the
fossil record.
Well, of course, that's puzzling to him, and it's a failure for the evolutionary
prediction.
It is just the opposite for the creationist, who is delighted by such
evidence, as he describes.
He continues saying, we have sought to impose a pattern that we hope to find on a
world that does not really display it.
The pattern, of course, being evolutionary progression.
He's puzzled by the failure to find that.
Now, again, that's his description of what we see there.
It's the opposite of change that would be predicted.
He says, in Natural History, we can tell tales of improvement for some groups,
but in honest moments, we must admit that the history of complex life is more a
story of multifarious variations about a set of basic designs than a saga of
accumulating excellence.
Now, he uses the word design, though, to be fair to him, he doesn't believe they
were designed.
That's what they look like.
He chose that term.
But they're telling tales when they tell of this tree of life that progresses
upward that's not from the fossils.
What you really see is just variation about a set of basic designs.
And this is not new knowledge.
Darwin understood this.
Back in Origin of the Species, he says, innumerable transitional forms
must have existed, but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the
crust of the earth?
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate
links?
And of course, if his view of the fossil record is true, then that's exactly what
should be found.
And he understands, yes, that's what we should see.
That's the only way we can see change or evolution in the fossil record,
these transitional forms.
And there should be more transitional forms since they were leading to the
others constantly, but that's not the case.
Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finally graduated organic chain.
And this is perhaps the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.
Now, many people think Darwin looked at the fossil record and said, here's proof.
But no, he saw this as his biggest problem and it's gotten worse.
Many times people will say, well, it has gotten better.
Darwin recognized the problem.
But notice the statement by David Rapp of the Chicago Field Museum of Natural
History.
He's curator of the largest fossil museum in the United States.
And he says Darwin was completely aware of this.
He was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he
predicted it would.
He continues saying, well, we're now about 120 years after Darwin and knowledge of
the fossil record has been greatly expanded.
We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed
much.
He says, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than
we had in Darwin's time.
He says, by this I mean that the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil
record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded
or modified as the result of more detailed information.
The classic cases we've lost.
Now, that bit of knowledge hasn't made it to most of the textbooks.
They still have the evolution of the horse as one of their star classic cases,
but one by one they've dropped out, including this one.
We've all seen the representation in the textbooks of the little horse that
graduates up to the big one.
Again, they leave out significant facts that these animals are found side-by-side
up in Kansas in the same stratum.
We excavated a nine-foot donkey from the fossil record out near Lubbock,
Texas.
That kind of messes up the little graduated horse chart, but basically
you're looking at small horses leading to big horses.
Notice the description of this by Colin Patterson, and he's curator of the largest
fossil museum in the world, recently deceased.
Senior paleontologist, though, at the British Museum of Natural History
for many, many years.
He said there have been an awful lot of stories, some more imaginative than
others.
The more famous example, now he's being interviewed, by the way, by Harper's
Magazine.
He's in the United States and he's in the American Museum of Natural History in New
York being interviewed now by Harper's.
The most famous example, still an exhibit downstairs, is the exhibit on horse
evolution prepared perhaps 50 years ago.
That has been presented as the literal truth in textbook after textbook.
And if you're familiar at all with the biology textbooks, earth science
textbooks, you've certainly seen that representation.
He says, I think that's lamentable, that is, that it's been in all of these
textbooks.
Particularly when the people who show those kinds of stories may themselves be
aware of the speculative nature of some of that stuff.
He knows that this is not fact, that they have lined them up the way they
want them to, even though they find them in the same layers, and that you don't
know that one led to the other.
It's just the way they tell the story.
George Gaylord Simpson is probably the most authoritative source of information
on horse evolution.
He's the one that came up with this argument.
He wrote the book on it.
And in his book, Life of the Past, he says, the uniform, continuous
transition of hydrocatherium into aqueous, that's what's pictured in the textbooks,
so dear to the hearts of generations of textbook writers, never happened in
nature.
Here's the author of the story, and he says the way it's told in the
textbooks never happened.
It's lined up as the evolutionist wants it to be lined up, but what does the lineup
prove?
No more than lining up the pig to the bull to the man.
Derrick Egger, when this statement was made, was president of the British
Geological Association.
He says, it must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I
learned as a student have now been debunked.
And he refers to the horse story and to several others, but he does think that
many of them are, not many, that's not true, he thinks that a few of them,
and that's the way he would describe it, are still valid, though most of them that
he was taught as a student have been debunked.
He refers to Archaeopteryx as perhaps the best example, and we see this in all the
textbooks.
Here's the half fossil, half a reptile, half bird.
This is proof that the reptiles evolved into the birds, and we see this beautiful
fossil specimen showing the feathers, I think, of an excellent bird.
Some of the beautiful fossils of the feathers testify to that, and we see the
wing here of a powered flyer, but we're told, look on the edge of its wings,
it has claws.
This proves it's primitive.
Well, many birds in the fossil record had claws that lost them, and losing things
they did have is not an evolutionary progression upward.
That involves getting new things, not losing old things.
But we do have many birds today.
For instance, the Hoatzen maybe is the closest example down in South America that
has claws on its wings in the juvenile form, and all of the examples of
Archaeopteryx have been the juvenile form.
The Cassoway, the ostrich, have claws on their wings, and so this is not unique,
and is something birds, the tern for example, does, and has lost them,
that is, had them in the fossil record.
But we're told, look at the teeth.
This primitive bird has teeth, and the teeth prove he's primitive.
Well, again, he's lost something, and when people lose their teeth,
most don't think that's an evolutionary progression.
Teeth are amazing structures, and when you study the formation of the teeth,
and the way the deciduous makes way for the permanent teeth, it's just
mind-boggling to see, I think, the design involved in the structure.
And birds have lost them.
The tern, again, has beautiful teeth in the fossil record, many of them do,
and don't do.
They're beautiful, powered flyers today, but they've lost something, and that's not
evolution.
Many people look at that, I think, inside out.
There are modern birds that have teeth today, and so it's not a completely unique
situation.
But I think the real answer to Archaeopteryx comes from the evolutionary
perspective of time.
I disagree with their views of time, but let's play the game their way and see
how it comes out.
If their view of the dating of these fossils is correct, there's a serious
problem with the find that was made a number of years ago, here reported in
Nature, 1986.
The headlines, Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypothesis.
And here's a bird 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx.
That's half again as old as Archaeopteryx was, and it's a bird.
It's an excellent bird.
Here it refers to the paleontologist at Texas Tech University, Dr. Chatterjee.
He and I have worked together a couple of times.
They have advanced avian features.
This is a good bird that got there before Archaeopteryx did.
Well, how can Archaeopteryx lead to the birds if the birds got there first?
You can't have the kids older than the parents, you know.
It just blows the theory entirely.
And actually, this is not the only example of that being found.
Birds have been found in a number of instances before, according to their
interpretation.
The things they've led to have appeared.
W.
Swenson, I think, sums it up very honestly.
He's from Cambridge.
In his book, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, he says, the origin
of birds is largely a matter of deduction.
There is no fossil evidence for the stages through which the remarkable change from
reptile to bird was achieved.
Now, as we think of the tremendous difference between us and something that's
up flapping its wings and flying, what would it take to get us or to get a
reptile up and flying?
Well, the birds have hollow bones.
They have a completely different respiratory system and completely
different circulatory system that's necessary to sustain the high rate of
breathing and the heartbeat and respiration, the high metabolism.
It just takes a tremendous amount of change and there's no evidence of the
remarkable change.
Now that certainly doesn't speak well for an evolutionist trying to document change.
D.B.
Kitts, University of Oklahoma, says the fact that discontinuities,
not continuities which would show progression, discontinuities are almost
always and systematically present at the origin of really big categories.
Now, you would see dissimilarities, you would see gaps in the fossil record
due to random sampling and incomplete sampling if it's just random and spaced
accidentally.
But this is systematic and regular at the origin of really big categories.
It's an item of genuinely historical knowledge.
Now, D.B.
Kitts is a devout evolutionist.
He's writing in the journal Evolution and says this is systematic.
Anytime you get something that's really different then you have a gap.
And we all know this, though we don't tell it to you in the textbooks typically.
Evolution, he says, requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology
does not provide them.
Now, if you listen to your earth science teacher, she may tell you that it does.
But here is one of the leading authorities in the world, writing in the journal
Evolution, saying you don't see that in the fossil record.
David Swift, who is professor of paleontology at the University of Hawaii,
writing again in his book Evolution under the microscope, no phylum can be traced
from a preceding one in the fossil record.
We cannot account for the origin of a single phylum.
They all appear abruptly.
Now, he devoutly believes that they did evolve, but in terms of the fossil record,
that's not the picture you see.
This is also true of taxonomic groups such as classes, orders, possibly lower still.
In other words, you got a major group, it's sudden and probably true with its
classes, orders, and even lower.
You got something different, you got a gap.
It doesn't lead from one to the other.
Again, this is not the creationist telling you that.
S.M.
Stanley, a very famous paleontologist from Johns Hopkins, says there's not one.
In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single
transitional form from one species to another.
A.C.
Stewart expresses the fact that he is confident that this is reality,
that is, that it did happen, it did evolve.
He says, the theoretically primitive type though eludes our grasp.
Our faith postulates its existence, but the type fails to materialize.
These are men of faith.
I think they're men of great faith, but it's not based on the evidence.
It's in spite of the lack of evidence.
In fact, as one individual says for the evolutionist, their faith is the substance
of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen.
You're familiar with the quotation from Hebrews applied here to the evolutionist.
Theirs is not based on evidence.
It's a blind faith, which I don't think is good faith, either religiously or
scientifically.
Niles Eldridge explains his justification for my statement.
He says, it has been the paleontologists, my own breed, who have been responsible
for letting ideas dominate reality.
We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports that
interpretation of gradual change, which is what he's talking about,
all the while knowing that it does not.
Now, that's what's required to show evolution, and so we told the story.
As Google says, we can tell stories about this, but in honest moments we have to
admit it's just variation about basic designs.
And here Niles Eldridge acknowledges that this is just not what we find in the
fossil record.
We know better, but we keep on telling the story.
I don't think that's honest.
I don't think it's good science.
And when we look at the fossil record, we see why they're squirming and having
trouble, because it's not saying what they wanted to say.
However, one of the reasons Stephen Gould is willing to admit some of these things
and acknowledge that this is not really what I would like to see, is that he
thinks he now has an answer.
He thinks he has a solution to the problem that you see a sudden complex beginning,
and you see fossils that don't change, and you see gaps between all of the
fossils.
They're separate and distinct from the beginning, and they stay separate in the
fossil record as in the living world.
But he can answer that, and so he didn't really admit that before.
But now then he's got an answer in punctuated equilibrium.
Sounds very impressive, doesn't it?
Actually, it's very similar to an idea that wasn't received quite so favorably
back in the 30s.
Goldsmith talked about the hopeful monster mechanism, and it was basically,
well it was a very similar idea.
And Gould refers to him and says it's similar, and says he thinks Goldsmith
would be vindicated.
But Goldsmith essentially said when you look at the fossil record and you see the
sudden transition of one form to the other, then there must have been a reptile
that somewhere laid an egg and a bird hatched out.
And that's the way he said it.
Well, the geneticist, and that was his field, laughed at him.
They preferred to think that he's the one that laid the egg.
Hopeful monsters didn't sound very scientific, but he says, well that's what
the fossil record looks like.
And so Gould building on that said, yes that's basically what happened.
He thinks Goldsmith would be vindicated.
But he doesn't call it hopeful monsters.
It's punctuated equilibrium, and that of course sounds much more sophisticated.
Gould and Eldredge wrote a very famous paper several years ago describing this.
And in it they say, in fact most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has
been favorable.
He says we're especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with
pride and with biological confidence a conclusion that had previously been simply
embarrassing.
All right, now what is it that they can now have pride in that used to be
embarrassing?
He says all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution.
Well if you're an evolutionist, that would be embarrassing.
But they don't have to be embarrassed by that now.
Not because he now finds the fossils that would solve the problem, but because he
has an explanation for why they don't find it.
He says, and we'll let Stephen Stanley, who is one who has written papers with
them on this subject, describe the nature of what they believe.
The record now reveals that species typically reveal, and when they say the
record reveals, they're talking about something they've been forced to by the
evidence and by very, very detailed studies with thousands of fossils
documenting this point.
The record now reveals that species typically survive for a hundred thousand
generations, even a million or more, without evolving very much.
Of course, this is combined with their view of the time.
But this is what we see, even assuming the time, that they survive without evolving
very much.
Now what does that mean?
We seem forced to conclude that most evolution takes place rapidly.
You might think that you're forced in a different direction.
You look at the fossil record and you don't see change.
You see over thousands of generations, they don't change.
What does that prove?
That things don't change?
No, no, no.
They don't challenge that.
That's sacrosanct.
Nobody is going to challenge that.
We know that it happened, but we don't see change in the... well, then the solution
is it must have happened rapidly.
Never doubt that it happened.
It just happened rapidly.
And that's what they believe.
Notice as he goes on to describe it.
A punctuational model of evolution, operated by a natural mechanism.
And notice he has to emphasize this is natural.
It may sound supernatural, but no, no.
Now he doesn't understand the mechanism, which he'll acknowledge, that made this
dramatic change very quickly.
But it's natural whose major effects are wrought exactly where we're least able to
study them.
In small, isolated, transitory populations.
So, you don't see this.
You can't see this, but we have faith that it happened there in these places where
you can't look.
The point is that if the transition was typically rapid in the population,
small, localized, fossil evidence of the event would never be found.
And so they conclude you don't have to be embarrassed anymore, because you don't
expect to find the transitional forms.
It happened so quick in these small, isolated areas that we don't even try to
find.
Used to be embarrassing, but we're not embarrassed by that fact anymore,
because now we have an explanation.
And so we're looking here at a story that explains why you don't have the fossils to
support this transition from one to the other.
And they have faced the fact they don't have a mechanism to make this dramatic
change from one to the other, because the mechanism that's proposed in the textbooks
is this gradual change, mutations being selected over millions of years.
Google addresses that when he says a mutation doesn't produce major new raw
material.
You don't make a new species by mutating the species.
That's an idea people have, that evolution is due to random mutation.
A mutation is not the cause.
It can't produce this dramatic change that he's looking for, and so he's given up on
it.
In fact, he just says, look, this is deleterious.
It is a change in a very complex system, random, accidental, like throwing a rock
at your TV set.
It's not likely to change it.
And so this random... no, it's not going to produce a new mechanism.
And so that's not it.
So we don't have fossils, we don't have a mechanism.
How valid is that kind of a concept of scientific change in terms of evaluating
this by the scientific method?
On the one hand, you've got fossils that you can observe and don't expect to
observe, and a mechanism that you don't know anything about and haven't seen.
And on the other hand, you have observed fossils, thousands of them, that show
distinct separate kinds, that show sudden complex beginning, that show they stay the
same, they don't change.
And mechanisms that we observe every day where kind produces kind produces kind.
On the one hand, we have billions of fossils that we base our conclusions on,
and we have mechanisms that we observe every day.
On the other hand, you have mechanisms that you speculate about and haven't
observed, and you have fossils that you don't expect to find.
Now, just answer the question honestly, which is better science?
Scientists should go by the evidence, they should be compelled by the best
explanation of the evidence, and that's not happening here.
Philosophy is obviously dominating the ideas.
Colman Patterson shows his understanding of this solution, his opinion of it,
when he says, well, it seems to me they have accepted that the fossil record
doesn't give them the support they would value, so they searched around to find
another model and found one.
When you haven't got the evidence, you make up a story that will fit the lack
of evidence.
Now, that may sound rather jaded, but that's his view, and I think he's
right on, again, the curator of the largest fossil museum in the world.
When you don't have the evidence, you just make up a story.
And when you talk about punctuated equilibrium, that's what you've got.
You've got a story about why you don't find the evidence.
It is not based on the evidence, but the lack of it.
Notice D.B.
Kitt's statement again.
The claim is made that paleontology provides a direct way to get at the major
events of organic history, and that furthermore, it provides a means of
testing evolutionary theories.
The paleontologist can provide us with knowledge that cannot be provided by
biological principles alone, but he cannot provide us with evolution.
If you're honest about the fossil record, this evolutionist, writing in the journal
Evolution, makes a very honest statement.
You don't see evolution in the fossil record.
You didn't see it in Darwin's time.
That was the biggest problem he had, as he acknowledged, and it's gotten worse
since then, as even the cases that he would point to have fallen to the wayside,
one by one.
You can't see it in the fossil record, and you make up stories about why it's not
there, which is what's being done.
And some... well, let's look at one more attack that's taken by Mark Ridley of
Oxford.
Totally different approach.
He says, a lot of people just do not know what evidence the theory of evolution
stands upon.
They think the main evidence is the gradual descent of one species from
another in the fossil record.
Yes, this is exactly what we're told, and without the fossils that show
progression proving evolution, it would just be an outrageous hypothesis.
I think if you're going to prove it, that's where you have to go, even though
it's circumstantial and historical, but nevertheless, that's the evidence.
And we're told if there's proof, that's where it'd have to be.
Well, he says, that's what you think, but you just don't understand it.
He says, in any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or
punctuationalist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of
evolution, as opposed to special creation.
No evolutionist thinks this way.
Well, obviously they do, but he's tried, and he's tried, and he's tried.
It reminds me of the story of the fox in Aesop's Fable, who's tried to reach up and
get the grapes, and he desperately tried, and over and over again failed,
and just finds out he can't do it, and walks off saying, those grapes are
sour, I didn't want them anyway.
You try for hundreds of years to document evolution from the fossil record,
and you finally find out, with more evidence, that it's just not possible.
Well, nobody wants those fossils.
We don't use fossils.
Nobody uses those fossils.
I think it's rather comical.
It's interesting, but it is true that you can't use the fossils to do it.
As E.J.
H.
Corner of Cambridge acknowledges, much evidence can be adduced in favor of
the theory of evolution from biology, biogeography, paleontology, but I still
think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of the plants is in favor of
special creation.
And why would he say that?
It's in favor of special creation because he sees the sudden complex beginning,
he sees distinct separate types from the start, he doesn't see change from one
group to another group, he sees stasis as the rule.
That's exactly what we predict, and that's exactly what you find and if
you're going to base your conclusions on the facts, that's where you'll have to
rest.
The evidence, the only way you could document evolution documents, I think,
the opposite.
When you look at the critical beginning, the sudden complex diverse beginning
showing all phyla and no new sense, including the major divisions and classes
and orders, distinct and separate.
Yes, trees of life are in the textbook, but they're from very selected
similarities, ignoring others, and those are not based on the arrangement
found in the fossil record, they're not from embryology, and they're not from
genetics.
When you look at similarities, yes, you can see them, but they're in a
mosaic pattern, they're not in a branching pattern.
Now that's the evidence of the fossils as we've seen.
Noting the creationist comments, they delight the creationist, they
embarrass the evolutionist, these are their terms, and yes, it is embarrassing.
It was embarrassing to Darwin, it's more embarrassing now, it's
delightful, as Dawkins says to the creationist.
And then he says that it was Darwin's biggest problem, now then it's worse,
according to Rapp, the links that we were taught in graduate school have been
debunked one after another.
It's blind faith, as they describe it, that says evolution.
We believe it, we make up stories to explain why there's a lack of evidence,
and we have devout faith, but when you just base your conclusions on the facts,
you have to say the fossils favor creation.
It's a much better explanation of the facts, and that's why I teach,
I believe, and demonstrate when we go out and dig up the fossils, and when we look
at all that have been dug up, that the fossil record is very strongly in favor of
creation.
Many times people say, well creationists just object to evolution, they don't have
any positive evidence.
We have hundreds of thousands of fossils in the museum today, which provide
positive evidence for a sudden complex beginning, and against a gradual slow
development over millions of years.
I love the fossil record, and I think it is one of the most delightful things that
I know about, and certainly in favor of creation.
If fossils are to show evolution, then we have to be able to see a change
from one type to another type.
And as we looked at the fossil record in general, we saw that was not the case
according to the evolutionists themselves.
There are distinct and separate types, there are gaps, discontinuities between
all of the major kinds.
And we see that's very definitely the truth as well when we get to the gap
between apes and men.
Though certainly there has been a great deal of effort put to try to show a
progression from one to the other here, and that's what would have to be done.
And we're often referred to the little gradual progressions of the little man up
to the big man in the charts in the textbooks.
We want to look at that evidence and see if there is such a progression,
but before we do, let's look at what I'll refer to as the gap before the main gap,
and that's the one leading up to the apes.
Notice the statement by Donald Johanson, the discoverer of Lucy, one of the more
famous ape men so-called.
He says, at any rate, modern gorillas and orangs and chimpanzees spring out of
nowhere, as it were.
They're here today, they have no yesterday.
He says, this is not a situation where you show something leading up to the apes,
but instead you see the gap before you get to it, and that's typical.
Often we're told that when we talk about this, that we misrepresent when we say
that evolutionists believe that we came from the apes, because evolutionists don't
believe that, that they believe they came from a common ancestor, not an ape.
And here we see an example of that kind of statement made by Bill Allen, who was
editor of National Geographic just in 2004, when he says humans are not
descended from apes, but then Charles Darwin never claimed that we are.
Now this, this is absolutely amazing to me that somebody like Bill Allen would say
Darwin never claimed that we came from apes.
It's just simply not so, and it is a quibble that distorts the position.
As Darwin says, a naturalist would undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a
monkey, however much the conclusion may revolt our pride.
Our early progenitors would have been properly designated.
So we came from apes, according to Charles Darwin.
It's a quibble to say that we don't.
Now of course it wasn't a modern ape, but he was definitely an ape, according to
the evolutionists.
Stephen, I'm sorry, Ernest Houghton, Ernst Houghton of Harvard, wrote the book
Up from the Ape.
He was head of the Anthropology Department at Harvard, and from that title,
you get a pretty good idea of what he thought on the subject.
But notice his comments.
If we are descended from apes, our remote ancestors ought to look their
part.
You may not be willing to admit that you resemble an ape, but as you trace back the
genealogical lines, you will have to admit that somewhere in your family tree,
there squats an ape.
Here's head of the Anthropology Department at Harvard.
I think he believes we came from apes, and he's not unique.
And editor of National Geographic, notwithstanding, this is certainly what he
has taught.
But this individual who believes that an ape squats in your family tree goes on to
make a very interesting statement.
He says, to attempt to restore the soft parts, as in contrast to the hard parts,
which he's been talking about, difficult enough.
To attempt to restore the soft parts is even more hazardous undertaking.
The lips, the eyes, the nasal tip leave no clues on the underlying bony parts.
Now, if you watch some of the TV programs, they can just take a glance at the bones
and they know exactly what the person looked like.
Well, you can learn a lot from the bones, but you can't learn what the lips and the
eyes and the ears and the nasal tip look like from the bones, and that is what
leaves the major impression.
And certainly, when you are restoring these so-called ape men, you can make them
look very ape-ish if you change the lips, the eyes, the ears, the nasal tip,
and so forth, which is certainly what is done, and we'll document that.
He says, you can with equal facility model on a Neanderthal skull the features of a
chimpanzee or the alignments of a philosopher.
Now, most philosophers that I know, some of them look a little strange,
but I think you can tell the difference between them and a chimpanzee.
But you can model the same thing, either of the two, from the same skull.
A very important point is made by Roger Lehman, who is editor of Research News
Science Magazine, certainly a devout evolutionist and a close friend and
co-author with Richard Leakey.
He says, and this is maybe the most critical point that we'll make regarding
fossil men, and he makes it for me, the key issue is the ability to correctly
infer a genetic relationship between two species on the basis of a similarity in
appearance.
Now, we talked about similarities when we talked about the fossil record,
and the only way you can tell that the fossil means anything is it's similar to
this one, and you interpret that.
But that is obviously misleading.
He goes on to say it's deceptive and gives a specific example because similarity
structure, he says, does not imply an identical genetic heritage.
A shark, which is a fish, a porpoise, which is a mammal, looks similar.
But this is the ballgame when it comes to paleoanthropology.
You look at this bone, and you look at that bone, and you say, well, it looks
similar, or it doesn't look similar, and that's the way you tell ancestors.
But it's a deceptive basis, and even the evolutionists acknowledge this.
Roger Lewinton, the whiteness, actually bending over backwards to be fair
here.
He'd been caught in a rather intemperate statement being interviewed by Harper's,
and he's backtracking a little, and I want to be fair to him.
But he acknowledges we don't know anything about the ancestors of the human species.
Now, to be fair, we emphasize the word know.
Now, he believes devoutly that we came from the apes, and he thinks he knows how.
But in terms of knowing, absolute knowing, we don't.
All the fossils which have been dug up and are claimed to be ancestors, we haven't
the faintest idea whether they're ancestors.
Now, I'm embarrassed to use that statement, because I know he wouldn't make
that under normal circumstances, because he certainly has a faint idea.
He has more than that.
He has a deep conviction, and I don't want to misrepresent that.
But in terms of knowledge, in terms of absolutely knowing, no.
You can't know that this bone is kin to that bone.
You dig up the bones, he says.
It's up to you to draw the lines.
And he says, there are no lines when you dig the bones up.
You draw them, and of course, that's based on similarity, which is deceptive.
But if you understand that he's talking about absolute knowledge, he's saying,
no, we don't know.
But we see lineups like this in the textbooks, and that, in the minds of a lot
of people, is proof.
See, there's scientific evidence.
It's been demonstrated.
Here's the homo erectus that leads to the Neanderthal and to modern men.
Well, this is the typical lineup, as it's represented in most textbooks.
It's not really typical, as you study paleoanthropology, but we'll summarize it
and use it as an outline for our session in this brief consideration of
paleoanthropology.
It actually looks about like this when you see it in the textbooks.
The star of the show, and where we'll spend most of our time in this first
session, is with Australopithecus, South African ape man, that led to homo
erectus, that led to Neanderthal, and finally up to moderns.
Australopithecus is featured as the major proof in the minds of a lot of people.
When I talk to people about why they believe in evolution, many times they'll
refer to the ape man, and here are the pictures that they see in the books,
and here's the work that the Leakeys did over in South Africa.
And this provides proof.
Well, let's see what the evidence is.
This is a representation by time-life of this ape man, Australopithecus,
and actually was made famous by Louis Leakey a number of years ago with his
movie Dr. Leakey and the Dawn of Man, and this was shown in thousands of
classrooms across the country, and he's shown going step by step down the
Avoir Gorge over in Africa, where he found this South African ape man.
The, I think, was an ape, but actually his wife was the one who found it.
I've wondered why some of the women's lib movements haven't really capitalized on
this.
She's the one that made the discovery.
He got the credit for it.
But notice the statement by Roger Lewin.
Again, editor of Research News.
He knows these people well.
They're good friends.
They've written books together, and he can represent them accurately.
He says, Richard and his parents, Louis and Mary, have held to a view of
human origins for nearly half a century now, that the line of true man has a
separate ancestry that goes back millions and millions of years.
He doesn't believe one led from the other.
They are separate as far back as he's been able to see, and he sees no connection as
far back as he's been able to look.
He says, Australopithecus, the ape man Australopithecus, has nothing to do with
human ancestry.
And of course you've seen this in National Geographic or in your Earth Science
textbook.
Don't hold your breath.
But here is one who knows these people well, and he says, they didn't believe
that Australopithecus led to man.
They were separate as far back as they see them in the fossil record, and they had
nothing to do with the human ancestry.
Louis Leakey, for example, is touted as the hero of the evolutionist in the movie
Gorillas of the Mist, and he is one who's the leader, the icon of evolution.
They'll not tell you that he actually gave up on Darwinism, and is quoted in this
manner in the Chicago American actually months before he passed away.
Dr. Leakey, and this was after he had lectured there the night before,
Dr. Leakey bases his repudiation of Darwin on the results of his long search in East
Africa for the remains of the original man.
He's often touted as proof of evolution, but never is it acknowledged in any of the
textbooks that he actually reached a different conclusion based on the
evidence, and decided Darwinism was not a good explanation for what he saw.
When we look at Australopithecus, we can see why.
Charles Oxnard is one of the leading authorities in the world.
He is Dean, or was at the time this was written, of the Graduate School and
Professor of Biology and Anatomy at University of Southern California.
Writing an American biology teacher as an acknowledged leader in the field,
one of the leading experts, he says, referring to Australopithecus,
it's reminiscent of the orangutan, and not that much like humans.
Now, I'll assure you, you'll never find a statement like that in your textbooks.
It looks like an orangutan.
It doesn't look that much like a human.
May well have been bipeds, that is, walked on two legs, but if so was not in
the human manner, he didn't walk on two legs as we did.
They may have been quite capable climbers as much at home in the trees as on the
ground.
And so this was an ape, much more like an ape than like a human.
Maybe two legs, but a knuckle walker at home in the trees.
Again, not the picture that you see represented in the textbooks.
Lord Sully Zuckerman is perhaps the leading expert in England, and certainly
has been for a number of years.
He's quoted by Lewin in his book Bones of Contention, referring to Zuckerman
dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human
evolution.
They're just bloody apes, he's reputed to have observed examining australopithecine
remains in South Africa.
They are just apes.
He dismissed them as having anything to do, and is perhaps the leading authority
in Europe in paleoanthropology.
He says in his book, Beyond the Ivory Tower, australopithecine skull is in fact
so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human.
And then he refers to figure 5, which we'll look at in a moment.
Overwhelmingly ape-like, simian, as opposed to human, that the contrary
proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.
I seldom get scientists to make that flat-footed a statement, but it's very
obvious he is persuaded that these are apes.
They are not humans, and it's just like calling white, black, black, white to say
the opposite.
And then he shows why in figure 5.
He's looking here at illustrations of the chimpanzee skull on the left and the
australopithecine skull on the right.
And as you look at these pictures, you see, wow, they sure do look like each
other, don't they?
The top view, yeah, that looks pretty close.
Much closer to each other than to humans.
And then you look at the bottom and you say, well, yeah, that's closer to each
other, the chimpanzee to the australopithecine, than they are to
humans.
Now, we're told, well, yes, that's true, except you do see a difference.
And in the bottom picture you can see that the teeth are different.
You see the large canine tooth with the chimpanzee, the diastema, the gap that it
fits into, which is not the case with the australopithecine.
It's more like the human U-shaped dental archaic.
So that makes the man.
The fact that his teeth are different.
What they do leave out is that the Galata baboon, which is 100% ape, has teeth just
like this.
And so it's not unique to humans.
Some apes have teeth like this.
Australopithecus did, so did the Galata baboon.
Perhaps the most famous example of the australopithecine type, the Afarensis,
was found by Donald Johanson, called Lucy.
And a lot of notoriety and always in the textbooks.
In fact, big news recently in Houston, where it's going to be on display for a
while.
And I've had people say, well, look at Lucy.
This is proof of evolution.
This is really frustrating, because the information has been distorted.
And the most obvious interpretation is this was an ape.
I'd like to introduce and show a brief clip of Dr. David Menton.
He's a professor of anatomy.
He's taught in St. Louis at the American University there for 20 years.
And he's commenting on it.
Now, most of the... all of the people that I quote, unless we tell you otherwise,
are devout evolutionists.
Dr. Menton is a creationist, but a highly qualified creationist.
And he's describing what actually happened.
And actually, he'll introduce Dr. Lovejoy, who acknowledges what has happened.
So, you get the picture?
The creatures like Lucy have the ape orientation of the iliac blades.
Now, what are the evolutionists going to do about that?
You're not going to believe this.
NOVA?
Have you heard NOVA?
There was a PBS NOVA series in which Dr. Owen Lovejoy, a very distinguished,
famous paleoanthropologist, was involved.
And he's looking at Lucy's skeleton here, and he's lamenting the fact that the hips
are all wrong.
They're supposed to be human-like hips, so you can walk the way the Laetoli
footprints showed she walked, but they don't look like human hips, they look like
ape hips.
What to do about this?
Watch it.
You'll get a big kick out of this.
The ape that stood up?
It was a revolutionary idea.
We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding
up.
The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't.
Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy
couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human.
But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones have been fossilized.
When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the
pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused
it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused
together in later fossils.
So you see, they were broken and they don't fit together properly.
They did speculate in the program as to exactly who was responsible for breaking
the hip, and current scientific evidence suggests perhaps a deer stepped on it.
Here you can see a deer foot stepping on the bone.
Isn't that a bummer?
Let's see where it goes from here.
This has caused the two bones, in fact, to fit together so well that
they're in an anatomically impossible position.
The perfect fit was an illusion that made Lucy's hip bones seem to flare out like a
chimp's.
But all was not lost.
This is a power saw, friends.
You may want to put your goggles on.
Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape.
He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster.
Notice he's removing whole parts, not just cutting.
He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before
Lucy died.
It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit
together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle.
Look how perfect.
You can read a newspaper through the hole.
As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimp's, but a lot like
ours.
You know, this is what we call science.
You can teach this in the public schools, but you can't criticize it, because if you
do, that would be religious.
Unfortunately for the evolutionists, dozens of other examples of the afarensis
form have been found.
Lucy is not the only example, and they wouldn't try to change all of the hips.
Arlene Ziltman of the University of California is commenting on, more
recently, on what we have learned about the whole picture.
She says they're like, and this is quoted in Science News, Ziltman compares the
pygmy chimpanzee to Lucy, one of the oldest known hominid fossils, and finds
the similarities striking.
She says they're almost identical in body size, in stature, in brain size.
Ziltman argues they indicate that the chimps use their limbs in much the same
way Lucy did.
And when, in other words, she was a knuckle walker, like the other apes,
and they're just virtually identical.
She was an ape.
She was a chimp.
And this is what the leading authorities have acknowledged, in spite of Lovejoy and
Johansson's shenanigans.
The main effort has been to cause them to be human because they stand upright.
Here's the argument.
If they stand upright, then obviously they're human.
Well, I know lizards that walk upright.
What does this prove?
The fact that an ape decides to walk upright?
Well, actually, we have an example of that happening that's referred to here from CBC
Health and Science News.
Just a few years ago, there were some apes, macaw monkeys, that got sick and
almost died.
And one of them, after it almost died, recovered and walked just, they called it,
ramrod straight from that point forward.
The zoo workers say she started, when she got sick, walking upright
exclusively.
A zoo veterinarian says he's not sure why she's altered her behavior.
But here is a change from walking like an ape to walking upright.
Why did she do that?
Well, the zoo worker went on to speculate that the illness could have caused brain
damage.
And so maybe that's why we walk upright.
This is maybe why the ape did.
It's strictly an interpretation, again based on similarities, many
similarities imagined.
Notice the distorted kind of interpretation to which we're subjected.
That was in National Geographic, the latter part of 2006.
The human ancestor, here is the front page, and of course this is an orangutan,
blurred the lines between ape and human.
Here's a new find and here is the real solution to all of the problems.
For example, her femur from knee to hip is close to that of a modern human,
implying she walked efficiently on two legs.
I'm sorry, that's just not true.
But that's what's touted in National Geographic.
We go to a much more respected scientific journal, Nature, to get the actual
evidence.
In fact, numbers of science journals have reported and bewailed what had been
presented there by National Geographic.
Here's the description in Nature by the authors who found it and who described it.
Incisors are larger, their overall morphology is similar to that of juvenile
apes.
The gorilla-like scapula and long, curved manual phalanges, that's the
fingers, the scapula is the collarbone, raise new questions.
And the collarbone is especially significant because it bears the weight
for knuckle walkers.
The shape of the scapula resembles the scapula of juvenile and adult gorillas.
Now that the scapula of the species can be examined in full for the first time,
it's unexpected to find the strongest similarities with the gorilla.
The similarities are not with humans, they're with the gorillas, especially the
areas that are diagnostic of the way they walked.
Weight-bearing and terrestrial knuckle walking is what's implied by the strong
similarities that are found.
And then it goes on to make an amazing statement.
These osteolipid specimens can be accommodated within the range of
intraspecific variation of African apes.
Yes, the apes vary, you see different types, but what we see here is within the
range of the variation of apes.
Now that's not the way it was presented in National Geographic.
You need to be aware that evidence is often severely manipulated.
There are similarities, but the representation of the similarity is often
just distorted.
We are told that a good example of these osteolipithecine footprints were found by
Mary Leakey in Africa.
They were from the same quote time period as they assessed the time, and there were
beautiful footprints, but they were human footprints.
They were very human.
The ape, of course, has a hand for a foot, and here are human footprints.
Now if Lucy made these, this is pretty good evidence that she walked upright in
spite of the anatomy that we have now found.
Notice the description of Mary Leakey herself who found them.
They belong to the genus Homo, or true man, rather than to man-apes like
osteolipithecus, who was once thought to be a forerunner of man.
Now this is Mary Leakey's statement.
They once thought that, but she doesn't.
It refers to the dates.
I disagree, but let's play the game their way and see how it comes out.
We'll talk about dates in another session.
Here is a time period right in the middle of the osteolipithecines.
In fact, this is ancient.
This is at the beginning of the osteolipithecine time period.
But they would be, in Mary Leakey's words, people not unlike ourselves.
And I believe they were made by people.
There's no evidence that were made by anything else.
But what's really ripped it for the idea that Lucy made them is that unlike with
the early specimens, which had no feet, now we've found a number of specimens that
had good feet, and they were ape feet.
Referring to osteolipithecine aparensis, that's Lucy's type, the recent
descriptions of four articulating foot bones from the three to 3.5 million year
old deposits in South African cave site stir font and support this.
The divergent big toe, and that's what distinguishes the ape foot from our foot,
indicates some degree of prehensile grasping.
They grasp, they wrap around a limb as in apes.
And we see here the human foot form and the ape foot form.
And Lucy had a foot, clearly indicated from the portion that was found in the
more recent skeletons, like an ape.
Lucy didn't make these footprints.
Humans made these footprints at the same time we're told that osteolipithecus was
around.
And so like the Leakey say, you've got evidence of man and apes,
osteolipithecines, as far back as you go, together, not one leading to the other.
William Howells, who at the time this statement was made, was head of the
Department of Anthropology at Harvard University.
And he refers to the work of Russell Tuttle, who he says is the leading expert
in the world on gates and limbs and fossil footprints.
He finds that all aspects of the footprints, especially, are remarkably
like modern feet, modern human feet.
And that the afar prints, that's Lucy's feet, are significantly different than
humans.
And so you do have human footprints back there.
That's not helping the evolutionist.
These critters are supposed to have led to man, but you've got human footprints back
there with them.
And then their feet were significantly different.
Howells goes on to say, the pelvis was by no means modern, in spite of Lovejoy's
jerry rigging with the power saw, nor were the feet.
He says the toes were more curved than ours, for wrapping around limbs.
The heel bones lacked our stabilizing tubercles.
A couple of small ligaments that in us tighten the arch from underneath were
apparently not present.
In other words, if you're going to walk like we do, you need an arch that can
contract.
And the finger bones were curved, again, just like you see in the apes,
as they are in tree climbing apes.
Now, what is he describing here?
You don't have to be an expert to understand that he's talking about apes,
but the experts do acknowledge this.
And we're looking here at the three probably most authoritative experts in the
field.
David Pilbeam of Yale, Glenn Isaac of Harvard, Matt Cartmill of Duke.
And we'll say more about their credentials in a moment.
But they say the status of Lucy has significantly shriveled.
The australopithecines, and this was not recent, this was 86.
This ought to be in the textbooks, but it isn't.
Australopithecines are rapidly shrinking back to the status of peculiarly
specialized apes.
Why would they say that?
Well, of course, that's what you see when you look at the bones.
They look like ape bones.
And more recently, if you want a recent quote, here from 2007, April 10,
in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, edited by David Pilbeam.
Morphology on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis,
that's Lucy's category, closely matches that of gorillas and casts doubt on the
role of Australopithecus afarensis as a modern human ancestor.
Now the authorities know better, and the authorities have said better in
the leading journals.
We need to change the textbooks, but they don't really have anything to put
in its place, and so they haven't, and it's not likely to happen.
Summarizing, then, with Australopithecus, we find that the shoulder bones,
the collar bone that bears the weight of knuckle walkers, was like an ape,
and so walked like an ape, and had a brain certainly the size of an ape, and teeth
like the Galata baboon, an ape.
Arms like an ape, that would reach down and allow them, as one author said,
to scratch their ankles when they stood upright.
Hands like an ape, and legs like an ape, and feet like an ape, and toes like an
ape, according to the leading authorities.
What do you think this was?
Must have been a duck.
No, I think when we look at this first example that is on the bottom rung of the
ladder that's supposed to lead to man, we have apes.
Now, the next one is Homo erectus, that we will consider in the next session.
But the first one that gets most of the attention today, lends no support to
evolution.
You look in the zoo today, you see a variety of apes.
There were more in the past, this was one of them, that has become extinct,
but it was definitely an ape.
In our first session on fossil man, we looked at the evidence regarding
Australopithecus.
This is the first in the rung of the ladder that leads up to modern men,
on this ladder of graduated fossil men, that's supposed to be a demonstration of
evolution.
But as we look at this first rung of the ladder, including Lucy, one of them,
we see that these were apes.
This is not a conclusion that we reach because of our Sunday school lessons,
but because of paleoanthropology.
And because of the statements of the leading authorities about the nature of
these specimens.
There obviously are those who will say this is an ancestor of man, but often
they're the ones that found them, or as we say down in Texas, they have a
dog in the fight.
But they have others who are leading authorities in the field who point out
with good reason that this is not the case.
Many times the evidence is gerrymandered, and we saw demonstrations of that.
The next one on the rung of the ladder is Homo erectus, that's supposed to lead on
up eventually to man.
And here we go back in history to look at the beginning of the evidence for Homo
erectus.
Historically, this is where the search for fossil man begins.
In this famous picture, we see the leading paleoanthropologist of the time actually
there at Cambridge, and we see Black and Dawson and Oakley and those who were
convinced that the Piltdown Man was an excellent fossil specimen that was leading
the man.
This was an ancestor of man, and of course it was a fraud.
It was in the textbooks for over 40 years before it was finally exposed as fraud,
and the men of science eventually did.
It should have been done much earlier.
It was very crudely stained and filed.
The evidence was excluded from the leading authorities.
Louis Leakey complained bitterly that while he was a student there at Cambridge,
the bones were there, and he was not allowed to examine them like these famous
men did, who were willing to line up and agree that this was a fossil man.
But when they finally did allow them to be examined, it was acknowledged to be a
fraud.
A very interesting statement is made about that by Roger Lewin, again, editor of
Research News, in his book Bones of Contention.
And by the way, the book Bones of Contention, while affirming great ages,
and certainly written by a devout believer in evolution, nevertheless is pretty
historically accurate, and is an interesting book, and tells the story of
exactly how these things were found, and the conclusions that were reached,
and why.
But he, regarding the Piltdown Man, and this picture that we looked at just a
moment ago, how is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day,
could look at a set of modern human bones, the cranial fragments, and see a clear
Simeon signature in them.
Now, they saw this.
They saw ape, Simeon, signature in what was actually a modern human bone,
and then see in an ape's jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity.
Now, it was from an ape, but they saw humanity in it.
Now, how is it that the greatest experts of their day could do that?
We think experts know these things.
He says, the answers inevitably have to do with the scientists' expectations,
and their effects on the interpretation of the data.
As he pointed out earlier, they have to interpret.
The key issue is inferring a genetic relationship based on similarities that
they see.
Well, they expect to see certain similarities, and they see what they tell
us about it.
Someone says, if I hadn't have believed it, I wouldn't have seen it, is probably a
better depiction of what we see in this case, as acknowledged by Roger Leland.
We go back in time, and after the Piltdown Man, we found that Henry Osborne of the
American Museum of Natural History decided that we needed a fossil man over in
America.
Maybe he thought the people in Nebraska looked primitive, and so he went to
Nebraska and found a tooth that he says looked like this in real life.
This is Hesperopithecus haraldkukai.
Harald Kuk was the one who actually found the bone and brought it to Dr. Osborne.
But he restored it, and this made the front page of the New York Times.
It said he walked erect and had a tail.
Anyway, this was America's answer to the Piltdown Man, the fossil man from America,
Hesperopithecus haraldkukai.
Well, he allowed the experts to examine this, and they began to look at more
evidence.
Several were very, very skeptical.
And then the next year, they found a complete jawbone with several teeth like
this in it, and it turned out to be an extinct peccary or a type of pig.
As one person, that's one case where a pig made a monkey out of a man, and some of
them suggested that maybe they should have called it Hesperopigdun phulumkuku.
He took a lot of flack, and I think appropriately.
But this is the nature of the history of the early stages of fossil man,
and it begins in this category of Homo erectus.
Another example is the Java Man.
This was found by Eugene Dubois.
He read, according to his own acknowledgement, Darwin's statement,
somewhere there's an ape more human-like or a human more ape-like, and this will be
the evidence that will be found.
So he went out to find it, and he traveled to Java.
He thought the people in Java looked primitive.
This was a part of his racist concept, and so he looked for primitive man there
on the island of Java.
He found a very human-like leg bone.
He found a very ape-like head bone about 75 yards apart in different layers.
A few teeth were found later, but that's the total of what he found.
More evidence has been found subsequently, which did not fit with his conclusions.
But this ape skull and human leg makes an ape-man and put them together and restored
them to look very, very ape-man-ish.
He did find other evidence that he didn't tell people about, and you don't learn
about this usually, certainly not in your undergraduate work.
This is Wajak 1 as he's restored by Kuhns, a very large brain, much larger than our
average today.
This was almost 1700 cc's compared to our average 1440, was found in the same area,
in the same layer, but he hid it.
He put it under his dining room floor and nailed the boards over it, and it wasn't
for 40 years, 40 years later that they finally found out about Wajak 1 that was
found with this partial cranium and partial leg bone.
But that's all faded, though not from all the textbooks, some of them, by more
recent finds of excellent examples, and they weren't nearly as old as they
thought, and now that they realize that there were very modern-looking skeletons
forms there found with them.
And here we find one of the leading authorities here reporting in Science
News, Milford Wolperth of the University of Michigan, he argues that Homo erectus
fossils actually belong to an anatomically diverse form of Homo sapien, that's us.
And so we see Eskimos that are a little different, and Australian Aboriginals that
are a little different, and we see the Bushmen that are a little different from
the Ubangis, and we see variations of good men, and this was a variation,
but it was a Homo sapien.
This was a man, and Java man doesn't belong in the lineup anymore, he was
already Homo sapien according to the leading authorities.
He's in the textbooks many times, though acknowledging that many of them
have been removed.
1470 skull, new Kenya National Museum, found by Richard Leakey, is one of the
leading representatives today of Homo erectus.
Originally it caused a lot of problem, they had to do some redating and some
gerrymandering in order to get this to fit into the tree, but here is a very human
looking skull that's supposed to have been found back at the time actually of
Australopithecus, but it's very human looking, so they put it in Homo erectus.
But notice the description that we find in National Geographic regarding Leakey's
find.
Either we toss out this skull, or we toss out our theories of early man,
asserts anthropologist Richard Leakey, of this 2.8 million year old fossil,
which he has tentatively identified as belonging to our own genus.
Now 2.8 million, that puts it right in the middle of Australopithecus.
You've got to do something about that, so they took it to California and had it
redated, and it's now 1.9 we're told.
But it's still very, very human-like.
It simply fits no theories.
Notice the description.
No previous models of human beginnings.
The skull is surprisingly a large brain case.
It's all compared to ours, but certainly within the range of humans today.
It leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an
orderly sequence of evolutionary change.
Now a large brain case with this no brow ridges, vaulted skull.
Now brow ridges is supposed to be primitive.
I get a little bit sensitive about brow ridges indicating that people are
primitive.
But this one didn't have that, and so it was supposed to be non-primitive
and a large brain case.
But it's back at the time of Australopithecus.
We learned more about the brain case when we looked at the endocasts.
These are casts that fill the cavity of the brain, and then the bone peels away,
and we see exactly what the brain looked like.
Here are some pictures of those endocasts that tell us excellent, give excellent
evidence for exactly what the brain looked like.
Dean Falk is one of the experts in studying this, and he says this is not
Homo habilis.
Homo habilis is very ape-like.
That used to be touted as leading to man, but when they found the more complete
specimen with the huge arms, actually much longer arms than most apes have,
and very small brain case, they have relegated this to the category of apes at
this point.
But it's different, he says.
This is similar to the African progeny that is Homo erectus, but the 1470 skull
is shaped like that of a modern human.
Now they don't tell you that in the textbooks, but this brain was like a
modern human.
We're also referred to another example of Homo erectus.
This is found by Richard Leakey, and this is the boy from Turkana,
Turkana boy.
Now they thought it was 11 years old initially, and then found out it was even
younger than that, which makes for a significant problem.
Notice again from National Geographic, the boy from Turkana was surprisingly
large compared with modern boys his age, could well have grown to six feet.
Leakey says the boy would be unnoticed in a crowd today, and then continues with
this amazing statement.
This combines with the previous discoveries of Homo erectus to contradict
a long-held idea that humans have grown larger over the millennia.
Have you heard that idea, and that it's been contradicted?
Well, if you've got a boy that is five, six, and is nine years old, it doesn't
sound very small to me.
In fact, that's larger than the boys that we have today.
And this is documented in Origin of Humankind by Richard Leakey.
We now know that it was nine years old, not eleven, and it was five, six,
here shown with Dr. White, who illustrates just how large this nine-year-old was.
Other problems have been found with Homo erectus.
Specimen Howells goes on to say with a date of about 4.4 million, and he's
talking here about another specimen that sometimes called 271, Canopy Man,
and it's from the area of Canopy, 4.1 million.
Well, now that gets us back earlier than virtually all of the australopithecine
specimens, but it could not be distinguished from Homo sapien.
Morphologically, that's by the shape, outward shape, or by multivariate analysis
by Patterson and myself in 67, or by much more searching analysis by
others since then.
Now this has been around a while, they've known about it.
It couldn't be distinguished from Homo sapien, but it was older than those things
that are supposed to have led to Homo sapien.
So what do they do with it?
They call it a Homo erectus.
I don't think that solves the problem.
Now multivariate analysis is a very thorough comparison.
We talked about the eyeballing.
This is similar to that.
Well, with multivariate analysis, you measure a bone about a thousand
different ways, and you measure the bone you're comparing it with exactly the same
way about a thousand different ways, and then you put it in the computer.
And the computer gives you a statistical readout of just how similar they are.
But by using that method, as well as morphologically and even more searching
analysis, according to Howells, it couldn't be distinguished from Homo
sapien.
And it's older than anything supposed to have led to it.
Homo erectus then is summarized this way.
Java man no longer really in the lineup by most assessments belonging to Homo sapien.
Turkana boy is certainly there, but he's large and unnoticed in a crowd,
larger than our boys today.
1470, according to Mary Richard Leakey, like modern humans.
And then the brains were like modern humans.
Little toy footprints are put in the category of Homo erectus, but they are
people, according to Mary Leakey, not unlike ourselves.
She discovered them.
And then you have Kanopy man at 4.4 million.
That's indistinguishable from Homo sapien.
What are we looking at here?
Is there any question about what we're looking at here?
These are people.
These are men.
Some of them may have lived in the jungle.
Some of them may have lived in caves.
We have people doing that today.
But these were people.
These were good men.
And that's not based on wishful thinking.
When you look at the actual evidence and the statements by the leading authorities,
that's what you have to say.
It's not really honest to say it otherwise.
That brings us then to the next rung of the ladder, Neanderthal.
Well, we've all seen the Neanderthal reconstructions.
We know this certainly looks like an ape man.
And yes, the reconstructions certainly do.
And if we found those in the back alley, it would scare the living daylights out of
us.
This is a type that was first found in the Neander Valley, hence the name
Neanderthal, in Germany.
And restored very quickly to look like this by Marcellin Buell.
And he had, of course, read Darwin, and he has... he believed devoutly there
was an ape man somewhere, and so he restored it to look like that.
Remember Houghton's statements, you can model on a Neanderthal skull the
features of a chimpanzee, the allotments of a philosopher.
Well, he did a lot of that modeling and did so very poorly, as leading authorities
acknowledged today.
This is Marcellin Buell, devout believer who was responsible for this misleading
representation.
Let's set the record straight with Ian Tattersall.
Now, this is no lightweight.
He is head of the Department of Anthropology at the American Museum of
Natural History.
Again, this is not a creationist, this is not my idea.
Head of the Department of Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History.
This fellow knows a lot about anthropology.
He says, quite as important as new Neanderthal finds in the 50s, and this
helped us change our view of Neanderthals, we found some new specimens, was the
recognition finally that the stoop-shouldered, bent-kneed stereotype of
these humans created by Marcellin Buell was totally false.
Now, that's his assessment.
The head of the Department of Anthropology at the American Museum of Natural History
said, this is false.
But guess where you find it?
In the museums and in the textbooks.
This is not the way it looked.
Richard Leakey comments on this.
He says, to refer to someone as a Neanderthal was, and still is to some
extent, an intended insult.
But then he says, the rehabilitation, however, began in the mid-50s when two
anatomists, William Strauss, A.J.E.
Cave, undertook a second reconstruction.
A body which, though somewhat stocky, was essentially like modern man's.
And essentially, meaning he doesn't see any difference.
And says they would be unnoticed in a crowd, again, put him in a Brooks Brothers
suit and you'd never know that he was different.
He's been rehabilitated, according to Richard Leakey.
He goes on to say that the brain is slightly larger than modern humans,
averaging about 1600 cc's, again, compared to our 1440.
The Neanderthal's average height was 1.67 meters, that's 5'8".
That's not considered unusual.
The average oriental is just a little bit shorter than that.
And so, well within the range of variation that we see today, not unique,
and is unquestionably, Richard Leakey is a Neanderthal sapient.
That's us, that's modern man.
Interesting that Kuhn's attempted two different restorations from the same
Neanderthal skull, neither one looking like the typical Neanderthal skull.
But here we see a rather philosophical looking face on the left, and then maybe
somebody that belongs on Mad Magazine on the right.
But both of them from the same Neanderthal skull.
Matt Cartmill, that we introduced earlier, claiming he was a leading authority.
He is president of the American Association of Physical Anthropology.
Again, these are not lightweight.
I tend to think they, the Neanderthals, had fully human language.
After all, they had larger brains than those of most modern humans.
They made elegant stone tools.
They knew how to use them.
These were people making tools very much like the American Indians made tools.
This is an example of some of their handiwork, a flute that was reported on in
Science and Scientific American that has exactly the same scale that we do.
The Do-Re-Mi scale that we have today, they were musical.
And they were religious, according to Richard Leakey.
He speaks of the tomb that they found that was buried with flowers and with specific
arrangements indicating a kind of burial ceremony.
He says the arrangement of flowers was not random.
They were carefully placed around the body, a concern for the fate of the humans
and the ritual burial.
They speak of a deep feeling for the spiritual quality of life.
This doesn't sound like the Neanderthal that I was taught about.
Again, problems after problems.
Another one showed up in Israel, and here's Bar Yosef of the Peabody Museum
at Harvard who found a number of Neanderthal skulls in caves up on Mount
Carmel in Israel.
But the problem was the modern preceded the Homo sapien in Neanderthals at Mount
Carmel.
The results have shaken the traditional evolutionary scenario, producing more
questions than answers.
Well, if you find Neanderthals in a higher stratum that's covered by travertine,
the moderns were lower.
Yes, more questions than answers.
Certainly doesn't fit the view we're taught in the textbook.
Many have reported that the DNA has been analyzed and they were very different
according to the DNA.
And some of the press did report it that way.
I hear from Scientific American, some of the researchers believe the data
can be interpreted differently.
The amount of diversity between Neanderthals and living humans is not
exceptional.
We see more diversity in a number of species and in humans.
And they point out some of the diverse types that have sometimes been found.
It's within the range of variation that we can see today.
More recently, very interesting and perhaps more definitive, is the protein
from Neanderthals has been sequenced.
And this was from Iraq.
And the team found the Neanderthal sequence was the same as modern humans.
Guess what these things were?
These were people.
According to Richard Leakey, he was unquestionably homo sapien.
There was a ridiculous reconstruction.
In fact, Howell says that Gusellan got the ankle bones on backwards.
By all laws of physics, he should have fallen on his face.
Fully human language, the DNA overlaps with humans.
And the proteins were identical.
The moderns were earlier.
The brain was larger.
They were religious and were musical.
These were not only people, they were good people.
And according to the way they made their flutes and some of the tools, they were
ahead of me, certainly in that department.
They've been grossly slandered by ridiculous reconstruction.
But these are people.
Richard Leakey says unquestionably homo sapien.
Now, this is not a Sunday school class conclusion.
This is what the leading authorities document.
Now, we've got apes and we've got men.
And where's the evidence that moderns evolved from ancestors?
Well, you can draw lines and you can line them up like the pig to the bull to the
man.
But that's not science.
That's not good evidence.
Mary Leakey made an interesting observation about some of these trees that
people line up more recently, quoted by Associated Press.
Since scientists can never prove, and this is what Leakey was saying,
you just infer based on similarities, you can never prove a particular scenario
of human evolution.
Because of that, he said, all these trees of life with their branches of our
ancestors, she says, that's a lot of nonsense.
Well, there's good reason for her saying that.
Now, she remains an evolutionist, unlike her husband who gave up on Darwin.
In fact, she commented on that saying he was a little tetched before he died.
Not exactly an objective analysis of what he was saying.
But she does say these trees that are in the textbook that show this kind of human
evolution in this direction or by another authority.
It's just a lot of nonsense.
It's people drawing lines and there are no lines on the bones.
We can summarize the evidence then for the proposed ancestors of man this way.
You go to the zoo and you can see a variety of apes.
They don't all look the same.
You can see a significant variety, all kinds, and there used to be more in
the past.
As we saw from the documented experts, there were greater numbers of phyla,
greater diversity in the past.
We have fewer today.
Some of them are extinct and you can go back and find some of those that are
extinct today, but they're apes.
They're a part of the variety of apes that have existed greater in the past.
And we look at the fossil record of humans and likewise we see a variety and
sometimes you can see what looks different to us, to our eye, not different to their
eyes.
And you could say some of them just look rather peculiar.
I understand people thinking that, but they're humans and they're excellent
humans and we need to understand that.
And that's what we see in the fossil record.
We see apes, a variety.
We see humans, some variety.
Now they've desperately tried to shoehorn things in between and at that point I
think they just wound up looking foolish.
But what you find is either apes or humans, or as Dwayne Gish used to say,
you take a little Incas opus and a little Hocus Pocus and you come up with Pithecan
spoofus.
And that's what's been shoehorned in the middle.
That's a picture of the actual evidence for fossil man.
The record supports just exactly what the creationists would expect.
A distinct, separate kind for each.
A gap before the apes, a gap after the apes before you get to man.
This is what we found in the fossil record earlier.
The fossil record of men favors creation because of that.
And it is against the idea of evolutionary progression.
I want to make one more point before we conclude, referring back to some of the
implications of evolution of man doctrine.
If we look at origin of the species, that's really not the title.
Many people are unaware that it was actually origin of the species and
preservation of favored races.
This is a photo of the actual original edition and you see the term favored races
about two-thirds of the way up.
This would never fly today and so they edited it and took that out.
But Darwin was a very devout racist as were most of the people who were following
his thinking.
In Descent of Man, he makes this statement.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races
of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races.
You've got savage races and you've got civilized races, you see.
One's going to exterminate the other.
Throughout the world.
At that time, the anthropomorphous apes will no doubt be exterminated.
He says the break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider,
for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope,
than the Caucasian and some ape today, as low as the Babylonians, instead of the
now Negro or Australian and gorilla.
Now, if that doesn't make your flesh crawl, it's amazing.
Obviously, he's a hero in the minds of many, but if any so-called hero were to
make that kind of a statement today, he wouldn't be a hero anymore.
I think he needs to be exposed for what he is.
Stephen Gould has acknowledged what happened as a result of his teaching.
He says biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1850,
but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary
theory.
Increased by orders of magnitude.
That's the fruit of the tree.
And then he goes on to say the pervasive racism of the white scientist.
This is typical.
Following Darwin's book, Origin of the Species, they look to the activities of
their own children for comparison with normal adult behaviors in lower races.
Now, Stephen Gould is not saying this.
This doesn't represent Stephen Gould, but he's talking about the typical white
scientist following Darwin's introduction of Origin of the Species, and as a
consequence of it.
He gives an example of this kind of thinking from Henry Fairfield Osborne,
who was curator of the American Museum of Natural History, referred to earlier.
What did he say?
Now, it's not Darwin saying it, but he's quoting the head of the American
Museum of Natural History.
The standard intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the
11-year-old of the species Homo sapien.
Negroes are not even in the same species, according to him.
That's just thoroughly disgusting.
But that's the fruit of the tree, even according to Stephen Gould.
When we look at the world around us, we see differences in facial structure,
in skin color, in brow ridges, in eye color, in hair color, in straight
hair and curly hair, and sometimes there are suites of these variances that
collect, and you get dark skin and kinky hair, though you do have people with white
skin that have kinky hair.
In Ireland, you've got a lot of people with red hair and blue eyes and freckles,
and usually there's not a lot of prejudice associated with that collection,
but it does get associated with other collections, foolishly.
You look at these people, do you see a primitive man there?
Many people will look at the fellow in the lower left-hand corner and say he looks
primitive.
This is Dr. Goulogong.
He has a doctorate from Oxford.
Now, I went to Cambridge, we talk about people from Oxford, but I assure you,
this is a good man.
He has excellent, well, he has an IQ higher than 90% of our audience.
He's a brilliant individual.
You thought he was primitive?
Shame on you.
It's really been interesting to see the results of our National Genome Project,
a monumental scientific project that has demonstrated that when we look
biologically, when we look at the genome, you can't find race.
Here's a headline from the Union Tribune in San Diego, no trace of race.
Genome Project proves that nothing biological separates peoples.
It's not there.
Often you can find greater difference between a brother and a sister than you
can between what's called today a black man and a white man.
Scientific American has explored the matter at length and found it doesn't
exist in answer to that question.
We've been looking at scientific evidence at this point.
Let's just compare the models and the implication and use a passage of Scripture
that will help define the position very much in contrast to that of the
evolutionist.
And we'll conclude with this.
Genesis 3, Adam called his wife's name Eve because she was the mother of all living.
And I think that makes us all brothers.
Sometimes I chide some of my black friends, you know, they talk about the
brothers.
I want to know why they're leaving me out.
I think we're all children of the same mother and father and that we need to act
as if we're brethren.
And that's what creation produces.
When you have that concept, that's where it leads.
Not that all people go where it leads, but they should.
Evolution leads in a different direction.