Where’s the Proof?

By David Brandt Berg


After all those millions of years of evolution, you’d think Earth would be ten feet deep in missing links and you’d find them every place you dug a hole, but it’s not and you don’t. There’s no conclusive evidence of evolution having happened.

Those who believe in evolution say, “It had to have happened because the only alternative is that God created things, and we don’t believe that. We can’t see Him, and we don’t believe in Him anyway—it’s irrational.” Well, they can’t see any evidence for evolution either, unless it’s some of the various hoaxes they’ve concocted and wild ideas they’ve dreamed up—that’s what’s really irrational!

On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence for Creation—the Earth and everything in it! The beauty, the majesty, the complexity of life, the Earth, and the heavens could only have come from the Creator, not from random chemical interactions over millions or billions of years.

Darwin’s Missing Links

If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions … and no transitional forms were contained in them.
—Niles Eldredge, “Missing, Believed Nonexistent,” The Manchester Guardian (November 26, 1978)

The reason for abrupt appearances and gaps can no longer be attributed to the imperfection of the fossil record as it was by Darwin when paleontology [the study of ancient life by means of the fossil record] was a young science. With over 200,000,000 catalogued specimens of about 250,000 fossil species, many evolutionist paleontologists … argue that the fossil record is sufficient.
—W.R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited (Nashville, Tn.: Thomas Nelson, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991)

The universal experience of paleontology is that while the rocks have continually yielded new and exciting and even bizarre forms of life … what they have never yielded is any of Darwin’s myriads of transitional forms. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin [of Species]. The intermediates have remained as elusive as ever and their absence remains, a century later, one of the most striking characteristics of the fossil record.
—Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Chevy Chase, Md.: Alder and Alder, 1986)

First, and perhaps most important, is the first appearance of fossils. This occurs at a time called the “Cambrian.” The fossils appear at that time in a pretty highly developed form. They don’t start very low and evolve bit by bit over long periods of time. In the lowest fossil-bearing strata of all [the Cambrian], they are already there, and are pretty complicated in more-or-less modern form. This situation has troubled everybody from the beginning—to have everything at the very opening of the drama. The curtain goes up and you have the players on the stage already, entirely in modern costumes.
—Norman Macbeth, speech at Harvard University, September 24, 1983, quoted in L. D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988)

The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches. … A species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.
—Stephen Jay Gould, “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History 86 (May 1977)

Intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic change, and this is perhaps the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of evolution].
—Charles Darwin, Origin of the Species, quoted in David Raup, “Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology,” Field Museum Bulletin (January 1979)

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.
—Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life (New York: The Free Press, 1999)

The creation account in Genesis and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks, developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.
—D.B. Gower, “Scientist Rejects Evolution,” Kentish Times [England] (December 11, 1975)


Copyright © Activated Magazine. All rights reserved.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s