Josh is gone and Jackson, if you can switch me over here, but the
Josh is gone. So I'm going to do the teen
Sunday school class in here this morning and you've got an
outline, hopefully. Does anybody not have an
outline? You should have one of these.
Brother Kevin's got some extra ones.
Did anybody not get one? Teen should already have theirs,
hopefully. But all right, I'm going to try
to give you a crash course in this this morning.
All right? This is evolution, Evolution and
science. And there's a lot of things that
we've been talking about. There's really this this whole
course is an apologetics course. And it's designed to help us to
have confidence in the Bible. Does anybody know what
apologetics is? If you could just put it in a
simple sentence, What is apologetics?
Yeah, a defense of the faith is essentially what it is, right?
What I believe and why I believe that that's what apologetics is.
And and so we've been going through this series in our class
for quite some time now. We went all the way back and we
looked at a lot of different archaeology and all the
archaeology points to the fact that the Bible is true.
All of the all of the places that are mentioned in the Bible.
There's been many times when scholars, all the smart people
have said this, this place is mentioned in the Bible, but
there's there's no evidence of it.
And all of a sudden they find evidence of it.
And you know, even King David for years and years and years,
the archaeologist said there is no King David.
There is no, there is no, there's no evidence of him
anywhere. It's just a myth.
It's just something that Israel made-up to have somebody to
follow, kind of like, you know, Zeus or, you know, some of these
other mythical people. And then all of a sudden they
started finding all kinds of things with David's name on it
to prove that there was actually not only a King David, but that
he was as powerful as the Bible says that he is essentially as a
king and many, many other things like that.
But then evolution is also the same way.
There's many things that evolution came along and I don't
have time to give you all of the history of it, but I actually
here's here's what we've been looking through when it comes to
evolution in science. And of course I don't have it
now. Is there a reason it's not
following me here? Let me let me disconnect and and
try reconnecting again. Sorry, give me one second here.
See if this does it. It's not well, let's see what
happens here. Let me let me disconnect.
I think I, I think I've had to do this a couple times before.
Let me try this real fast. I'll reconnect.
Sometimes I try to set it all up ahead of time and sometimes when
it sits there for a little bit, it doesn't connect.
There we go. All right, so let me get to the
slideshow. There we go.
All right, so this is what we've been discussing in in our class
and the history of evolution. Let me just give you give you
give it to you very, very briefly.
All right, Charles Darwin is credited with coming up with the
theory of evolution. He did not come up with the
theory of evolution. He popularized the theory of
evolution. It's been around for many, many
years. But when Charles Darwin went and
visited the Canary Islands and, and some of the other islands
out in that same general area, he observed some different
things that he felt gave credibility to evolution.
And so he came back and he wrote a book called On the Origin of
Species. And that book became very, very
popular. And really during that entire
time, you got to, you got to kind of understand what was
going on in world history at that time.
In the late 1800s and mid, mid to late 1800s, Bible skepticism
was very, very high and minute. Much of that was coming out of
Germany. There was a lot of higher
critics in Germany. And during that time a lot of
Americans went over to study in Germany and came back with a
with a strong criticism of the Bible.
Doubting the stories in the Bible, doubting the miracles,
doubting the the deity of Christ, doubting many of these
different things. And when evolution was
reintroduced, if you will, or popularized during that time, it
gave them some other way to explain how everything got here
other than creation. And so many, many, many people
jumped on this theory of evolution.
It became very, very popular. But you've noticed that I've
said theory of evolution because that's all it is, and that's all
it ever has been. Nothing in evolution has ever
been proven. They're still today looking for
a missing link, something to prove that evolution is the way
everything got here. And they have their, their,
their proofs and different things like that.
But slowly but surely, every one of those proofs gets disproven.
And they, many times, even the evolutionists themselves come to
the conclusion that, OK, that is, you're right, that's not a
proof for evolution. But we have this.
And then they, they stick with that one for a while and it, and
it, and it, and it looks really good.
And then all of a sudden, oh, that one got disproven and
disproven too many times that even the evolutionists say,
you're right, that one's not a good, that one's not a good
proof. But we have this and they just
continually keep moving to different ideas about how
everything got here, about how evolution could be possible and
everything else. Now, I will say this, I give
Charles Darwin a little bit of a pass because back in the mid to
late 1800s, they didn't have near the information that we
have today. And even with what we're going
to talk about today, the fossil record, even with the fossil
record, Charles Darwin said we don't have much information.
Paleontology is in its infancy. We don't have much in the fossil
record. But I can, I can tell you that
as more research is done, as as paleontology grows, the field of
paleontology grows, more fossils are found.
I believe it's going to prove the theory of evolution.
Well, that was 150 years ago. Now we have a lot of fossils,
millions and millions of fossils that have been found.
Much research has been done through paleontology and nothing
has proven evolution. And I'll give Charles Darwin a
pass because he didn't have a lot of information.
But I don't give the evolution is today a pass because there is
so much information out there. There's no way that evolution
could possibly be true. And one of the greatest
evidences against evolution is the fossil record.
So I'm going to give you a crash course in this.
We've actually been in this for about 3 or 4 weeks, maybe even 5
weeks by now. And we've covered a lot of
different things in here. But I'm going to give you a
crash course in the fossil record this morning.
So you have your outlines there. Let's jump right into this.
Number one, this is your little dot at the top.
The fossil record is used to prove evolution, but it actually
disproves evolution. That's the fossil record is one
of the one of the biggest evidence is if you want to call
it that, that that the evolutionists have and you know,
everything has turned out to be a hoax.
We, we spent a lot of time talking about the ape men, the
ape men that were, you know, you've, you've probably all seen
the transition chart that goes from an ape to a human, right?
I mean, that's kind of when you see evolution, that's a lot of
times what you picture this little guy that started as an
ape and slowly, gradually stood upright and next thing you know,
he's a man, right? They found all of these
transitional forms, if you will, all of these ape men.
But it turns out that every single one of them was either a
hoax or misproven. They built an entire ape man out
of a tooth that they found. They found a tooth and based on
that tooth, they built an entire man out of that thing.
That was that was a hairy, you know, long arms like an ape.
The you know, the, the, the, the digits that that are all
separated makes it easy for them to grab on the trees and
everything else. We finally found proof based off
of a tooth and then they found out that it was actually a pig's
tooth. They, they found fossils that
were buried in, in like an old limestone quarry.
They, they, they found a leg bone, they found an arm bone.
They found a few different things.
They, they, they made this entire man, ape man out of this,
out of these bones that they found.
And it turned out when they started doing more research into
it later on, that it was actually not even real bones.
Somebody faked it, painted him to look old and then buried him.
And then he magically found it. You know, The thing is when you,
when you find something that proves evolution like that, not
you get fame, you get money, you get popularity, you get all of
those things. And So what would what, why
would somebody not want to go find these evidences for
evolution, right? I found a transitional form.
Now you're speaking all over the world.
Now you're writing books. Now everybody knows your name.
So that the, the, the temptation is very, very strong to, to
fudge these things and to, you know, to apply these hoaxes
into, you know, come up with all these different things that,
that prove every one of them when it comes to those ape men
has as, as all of them have been proven to either be 100% ape or
100% human or complete hoax. One of one of those three things
has always been what has come. And even the evolutionists agree
with that. It's not just that I'm a
creationist and I'm saying it from my perspective, but this
is, this is the fossil record is where of course they find these
things. Fossil record is just a little
bit different than that, but we'll talk about that.
So the, the fossil record, this is number 2 is the is vast, it
is huge. There are millions and millions
and millions of fossils that have been found over the course
of, of of all these different years.
And I'll say this, this is your Third Point there.
Charles Darwin knew that the fossil record did not provide
evidence for his doctrine, but he believed this problem could
be explained by the incompleteness of the record and
the rudimentary state of paleontology in his day.
I explained that already, but that's just a way for you to
write that down. The incompleteness of the record
is what he blamed for not having evidence of evolution.
Now, it's not incomplete. Now there's so many fossils.
Now we know a lot from the fossil record.
And so the fossil record has some problems.
And for evolutionists, I will say, and today there are 200
million fossils in museums worldwide.
And that doesn't even include all the fossils that people have
found and kept for themselves. I mean, there's millions and
millions and millions of fossils that have been found and nothing
that that proves evolution. So here's some problems with the
fossil record for evolution, which obviously are not problems
for us. They help creation.
They, they prove creation. So here you go #1 the fossil
records geologic column has major problems, Major problems.
Now I will show you what the geologic column looks like.
And I know you can't see it all from there, but you have the
Paleozoic age, you have the Mesozoic age, and you have the
Xenozoic age. Those are the kind of the three,
the three major ages that the fossil record of the geologic
column is broken up into. And all the way at the bottom,
the pre Cambrian layer. This, this layer is, I can't see
it myself, but it's 250 million years old, some even more than
that. But this, this fossil column
consists of layers of the Earth that supposedly represent
millions of years of time. There's supposed to be 3 major
eras, 13 stages. The Paleozoic, there we go. 540
to 250 million years ago is the oldest stage.
That's where you have. Of course, they said that
everything started off as single celled organisms and gradually
got more and more complex until you ended up with, you know,
that Organism crawling out of the primordial ooze that got
here by The Big Bang. By the way, there was a huge
explosion and all of this stuff just got here.
Last time I checked, an explosion does not help things.
It destroys it, right? Could you imagine if there was a
giant explosion and all the sudden the next thing you know,
there was a a giant jumbo jet that just magically assembled
itself, right. And a jet, by the way, is far
less complex than even one single human cell.
There is still things, even with the technology that we have
today, there are still things that they do not know about a
single human cell that they have not been able to figure out
either how it works. They're still discovering things
that are inside the smallest of the things that are inside the
cell, inside every single cell. And you have trillions of them
in your body, inside every single cell.
You have the the equivalent of a gigantic factory operation going
on in every single cell in your body.
And they multiply by the thousands and even the even the
millions daily. You lose cells, you gain cells.
It's just so, so, so complex. And all of this happened by a,
by a, a massive explosion. But then the, the cell formed
and it got bigger and more and more complex and next thing you
know, it crawled out onto the land and then that thing mutated
and had something else. And you know, the, the problem
with that is mutations are not usually good, right?
That's why you don't see all kinds of mutations out here
everywhere. Mutations don't normally live,
right? One of the things that they say
is that a bat came from a rat. OK, think about some of these
problems that you would have. OK, bats can't see right?
They use echolocation and they fly to catch their food and they
eat. They eat bugs and everything
else. If a rat suddenly became 1/2 bat
and now it's either blind or it has wings and it but it can't
grab his food because the mouse's body is far too heavy to
fly, right? If by chance there was something
that became 1/2 mouse half bat, it's not going to live a week,
let alone millions of years to keep evolving, right?
And and that's the same thing that you see with every so
so-called transitional form. Those transitional forms can't
live, they're mutations, right? A mutation does not usually
survive and if it does, it usually doesn't survive very
long. And if it does, it does not
reproduce as that mutation. It can, right?
Because it's a mutation. And so the whole theory of
evolution and everything getting here by mutations falls apart
when you just think about it from a logical standpoint.
You don't see things walking around with two heads, right?
Or if you do, it's very, very rare, right?
And, and they're not reproducing other things with two heads with
every generation that comes after that, right?
Because it's a mutation. And So what what you end up
happening with, with all of these things, the age of multi
celled organisms, the fish, the amphibians, and gradually they
got more and more complex. And the next thing you know, now
you have everything that we have today with all of the multi
celled organisms and all of those other things.
And so I got to move along quickly or we're we're not going
to get very far. But let me give you some major
problems. I'm I'm skipping all of these
things here. This is the this is problems
with the geological column here. Some some very, some very
difficult things that they run into.
And the first is the problem of depth.
According to evolution, every layer represents millions of
years. OK, I'm going to this is not any
of your points here. All right, I'm going to give you
some more of these, but this is just kind of setting the this
the table for what I do want to talk to you about with this.
But layers of millions of years of sediment that gradually laid
down South. Each layer would be millions of
years thick. And if every strata, if every
layer was visible in one part of the Earth, by the way, that's a
huge problem for them because there is no geologic column that
starts at the bottom and goes all the way to the top anywhere
on Earth. Nowhere on earth do we find
that, but it would be 100 to 200 miles thick if it was.
Could you imagine going 200 miles deep into the Earth?
There is. There is no place on Earth where
the geologic column is visible because of that.
So that's there's nowhere on Earth of that scene.
And we've got a lot of different things that go along with that.
But here's here's their first problem letter AA major problem
with that is the missing strata. The missing strata, they're
unconformities are layers in which millions of years of
supposed evolutionary history are missing, right?
You have places on Earth where there are these strata, but you
go from something that they say is 150 million years old, you
skip layers and you go to something that is 50 million
years old and there's layers that are missing in between
there. If it took millions and millions
and millions of years to lay those things down, how are those
layers missing Where they at, right?
Why are why are they not everywhere on earth?
If it took millions and millions of years for that to happen, why
don't we see them everywhere? It should be in every layer,
right? And they're just, they're just
not there. 14 major non conformities just in the Grand
Canyon layers that are missing in the Grand Canyon.
Fourteen of those layers that are just they're just not there.
If evolution is true, the billion years will be
represented by deep layers of rock.
But again, those layers are missing.
Here is another major problem with the geologic column.
This is letter B. The geologic column is all is is
often jumbled together. Sorry, this is this.
Is this this slide here? Problem is that the geologic
column is often jumbled together.
Sorry if I get this a little bit out of order or whatever.
I'm skipping a lot of slides. I'm skipping through this very
quickly because I want to try to try to get to as much of this as
possible. But that's another problem.
It's often jumbled together. And by that I mean this.
They've identified how old these layers are.
What you have is a layer that they say is 150 million years
old that's buried in the layer above something or below
something that they say is 250 million years old.
Or you have a layer that's supposed to be 540 million years
old because it's the oldest is the pre Cambrian layer.
And you find that on top of other layers that are supposed
to be younger than that. How is that possible?
If they got laid down over millions of years, there should
be no jumbling together. Everything Everywhere on the
earth should always be in the exact same order, right?
How do you explain? To lay down, here's another huge
problem. Fossilized trees that Pierce the
geological column. The geological layers have
fossilized trees in them. What happens when a tree dies?
It rots, falls over, continues to rot, and it goes back to
dirt, doesn't it? How long does that take?
100 years. Let's give it a lot of time and
say that it took 100 years for that tree to die, for it to rot
standing up, for it to fall over and go back to dust.
Let's say it took 100 years for that to happen, right?
These trees that they found fossilized Pierce layers that
are millions of years old. It starts in layers that are
let's just say 75,000,000 years old and go up to layers that are
50 million years old. Is it, is it possible at all for
a tree to stand for 25,000,000 years?
No way possible, right? It's not going to live that
long, number one. But even if it's dead, it's not
going to stand for that whole time.
But if evolution were true and everything was laid down over
millions of years and that tree stood there while all those
millions of years accumulated to accumulate those layers, right?
Well, how do you explain a tree standing up through multiple
layers? It happened all at the same
time, right? Through a worldwide flood.
That's the only way that you can explain that it happened.
Something in order for something to be fossilized.
OK, what happens when you shoot a deer?
And let's just say, you know, obviously for the sake of this
argument, you just shoot a deer. It dies.
You don't clean it, you don't do anything.
OK, let's just skip the shooting.
Let's say you find a deer on the side of the road, right?
What happens to that deer? The rots, let's say.
Let's say no vultures found it. It didn't eat nothing.
Ate it up right? But that deer rots and what
happens to it? Eventually all the skin goes
away. Eventually all the meat goes
away, and then you're left with bones, right?
What happens to those bones? Eventually they deteriorate to
the point where they're just like paper and they they
crumbled. It takes a little bit of time,
right? But that's what happens.
That's why you don't walk through the woods and just see
thousands of deer bones everywhere, right?
Because I mean, think about how many deer have died over the
course of the last 200 and 5300 years that we, that people have
been on this continent, right? It just, it doesn't happen
because they all eventually disintegrate and they disappear,
right? But how do you have then deer in
the fossil record or fish or anything else in the fossil
record? Something that is fossilized
cannot be fossilized if it takes millions of years for those
layers to build up around it, right?
It's not going to fossilize that way.
It would be gone long before it had time to do all of that
stuff. But if something is buried very
quickly in a mudslide or in a volcano or something like that,
it's it's fossilized. It's frozen in place just
exactly like that. In the fossil record.
They have found dinosaurs that are in the process of giving
birth. They found, they found dinosaurs
that were sitting right on top of eggs that still had the
embryo inside the egg. How does that happen over
millions and millions of years? It can't.
In order to be fossilized, it has to be buried very quickly.
And that's exactly what you have happening with these trees.
Fossilized trees that are piercing multiple layers of the
geological column are not going to happen over millions of
years. It's going to happen instantly.
And that only gives us more proof that the biblical flood is
true and that that's the way that everything happened.
So let me give you another one. Here we go skipping around #3 #4
sorry, Letter D. Another problem is the out of
place fossils. Out of place fossils.
It's another problem that you have.
And, and when I say that, I mean this.
A lot of fossils have been found in the wrong layers.
So what they have is all right, your dinosaurs and all of those
other things where they, you know, they were the ones that
came along first or not even that you're single celled
creatures. You're you're really small
things that that everything else kind of grew out of.
It would make sense that those were in the oldest layers,
right? They would have to be because
they were the ones that died first.
They got buried over multiple years, millions of years.
They got buried first. Problem is you find things that
they say are supposed to be 250 million years old in the 50
million year old layers and you have things that they say are 50
million years old that are buried in the 250 million year
old layer. How is that possible?
If it died and all of those live down there, and then evolution
happened and all of those things came from those things, then how
do you, how are those fossils jumbled?
Well, there's only one way to explain it.
They were all buried at the same time, all at the same time, and
with a worldwide flood, right? That's the only way that you can
possibly explain that. Let me give you #2 the fossil
record. First of all, the geological
column has major problems #2 the fossil record does not contain
the countless transitional creatures that Darwinian
evolution requires. OK, it would be one thing if
there was thousands and thousands and thousands of these
things we could say, all right, somehow we have to explain this
to be able to say that evolution is not true, right?
But here's the problem for evolutionists.
Not only are there not thousands and thousands and thousands of
transitional creatures, there are none.
They have never found a transitional creature.
There's been times when they thought they have, you know,
there's a fish that lives way, way, way deep in the ocean that
actually has feet. And they're like, oh, look at
this. We found, we found, they found
it in the fossil record 1st. And that was their, that was
their evidence for evolution. Well, then they found out that
actually somebody caught one. It was really deep in the ocean,
but they caught it, brought it up, and now they find out that
there's actually hundreds of them in the ocean.
It's not evidence of evolution. It was something that stayed the
same for their supposed millions of years, right?
They found it in a million years old layer, but they're still
alive today. So obviously they're either
evolution did not happen or it's still in the process of
evolving, or that's just the way it was made, right?
It was the way it was created. And obviously we know that
that's the case. So the the transitional forms
that are supposed to be there are not Letter A Darwin admitted
that the fossil record didn't contain these partly formed
creatures. Darwin was at least a little bit
honest. Now he was he, you know, Darwin
does not get a pass because he was a Bible critic.
He didn't believe the Bible and that's why he came up with this
theory in the 1st place. But at the same time, he was at
least a lot more honest than a lot of the evolutionists are
today. Darwin admitted that there was
not a lot of evidence for his theory.
Darwin admitted that they didn't know these different things.
And Darwin even admitted that if someday they were able to
disprove his theory, he would discard it.
He never did that by the top, by the end of his life, he didn't.
He didn't discard his theory, but at least he was honest
enough to say this is a theory. The ones who are alive today
that are promoting these ideas of evolution are not honest
enough to say Darwin was right. There is no evidence for
evolution. But Darwin at least admitted
that there was not enough evidence to prove that there
was, you know, transitional creatures found in the fossil
record. But his idea was, hey, over the
next however many years, as paleontology advances and as
more fossils are found, we will find those transitional
creatures. Well, they never happened. 150 a
175 years later, there are still no transitional creatures that
have been found in the fossil record.
That's a huge problem for evolutionists because literally
their entire theory is based on the fact that everything was a
transitional creature at some point, and there's none.
There's none. Let me give you another point
here. Let us see.
Evolutionists claim to have found missing links, but when
they're examined, it's evident that they're not the kind of
evidence that would stand up in court.
If you were to take evolution and put it on trial, you would
not find any of these transitional creatures.
Evolution is claimed to have found missing links, but when
they're examined, it's evident that they're not the kind of
evidence that would stand up in court.
Nobody would. Nobody would.
Nobody would say that evolution is true if you were to present
the evidence on both sides. Let me give you a letter D the
fossil record. Sorry, jumping around here.
Let me jump farther here. I'm skipping a lot.
I wish I could give you all of this, but the fossil record
disproves disproves evolution and that it does not contain the
countless transitional creatures that Darwinian evolution
requires. There just is not the evidence.
So that's a huge problem for evolution is because the fossil
record does not contain the countless creatures that
Darwinian evolution requires. Here's another problem for
evolutionists #3 the fossil record shows creatures appearing
suddenly fully formed with no evolutionary history.
That's a big problem for evolutionists.
First one, first reason why is the suddenness.
Let me let me jump up here. The suddenness, the Cambrian
layer is is kind of where this where this explosion took place,
so to speak. But the suddenness of the
appearance of creatures has even been given the name Cambrian
explosion or biology's Big Bang. The Cambrian layer is named
after the rocks in Cambria, Wales.
That layer is supposed to be 500 to 600 million years old,
supposed to represent the beginning of life.
It's, it's very, it's very early, at the beginning of the
Paleozoic era, as we already, as we already mentioned and showed
you, but they call it the Cambrian explosion because a
huge variety of fossil creatures appear in these rock layers
fully formed. In other words, you would think
that there would be layers below it that would have all of these
transitionary creatures in it, but that's not the case.
This Cambrian explosion shows all of your animals, all
completely fully formed, 0 transitional forms in that
layer. So it's a huge problem for
evolutionists because how did those get there?
Where did they come from? If they came from evolutionary
transitions, then there should be all, there should be
evolutionary transitions everywhere in those layers.
But they're not. They appear suddenly, all of a
sudden in those, the layers that they claim to be the oldest, all
of these animals appear fully formed, no transitional forms
whatsoever. And again, that's a huge problem
for them. That's a big problem for
evolutionists. Here you go, letter B Darwinism
predicts that the fossil record will show that creatures
gradually evolved, but in fact it shows creatures appearing
fully formed. Missing from the fossil record
are the millions of years of slow development from the
supposed first simple life form below the Cambrian layer.
So you have the pre Cambrian layer.
And in that pre Cambrian layer there should be all kinds of
transitional forms, because in the Cambrian layer you have all
of these animals fully formed. But here's a problem.
There are no transitional forms in the pre Cambrian layer
either. So how did they get there?
Well, there's one way to explain that, and that is a worldwide
flood. That's how they all got buried
at the same time, very suddenly. Here's another problem with the
fossil record. For evolutionists, the fossil
record shows complexity from its earliest layers, and we kind of
discussed this already a little bit, but complexity from the
earliest layers. Letter A.
According to the Darwinian doctrine of evolution, life
arose from a simple creature 1 celled and developed into ever
higher life forms, creatures such as bacterium to higher and
higher life forms. But that's not what the fossil
record shows. There is no single celled
creatures that gradually got bigger and bigger.
There's none of that. It's there's no simple creatures
in the fossil record. Everything just shows up.
Letter B creatures appear not only fully developed, but with
incredibly complex features, things like trilobites.
And if you've ever been to the Creation Museum, they have a lot
of different fossils in the Creation Museum.
In fact, they even have some fossils in the Ark Encounter.
They have a very large leaf that is fossilized from a tree in the
fossil record. Guess what?
Leaves die and in just the course of less than a year, they
get hard and they get soft and brittle and they crumble, right?
A leaf can't lay there for millions of years while layers
form over the top of it. It has to be buried all at once
in order for that to happen. So the bat here's a lot of
different things. The oldest bats have the ability
to fly and detect insects with echolocation organs.
They all had those in the fossil record, the trilobite eyes,
15,000 lenses, and some of the species of trilobites.
That's not a simple single celled creature.
That's very complex. No such thing as a simple
creature. Microbiology has taught us that
a bacterium is more complex than a modern city.
Just one, one little cell, even plant life.
Plants, by the way, do math. Do you know that obviously
plants need sunlight to live because that's what they use for
photosynthesis, right? What they've done is a bunch of
different experiments to try to see how these plants do when you
take them out of the sunlight and put them in a dark room.
And what they found is that these plants will actually do a
complicated math problems, if you will, to figure out how to
store the stuff that they already have so that they can
stay alive while they're while they don't have the sunlight.
And then when you put them back out in the sun, they, they, they
do these complex calculations again to figure out how to start
this process all over. And, and, and, and there's just
so much, there's so much that goes along with all of those
things to just prove that there's nothing.
There's no, there's not these simple little one celled
creatures. You don't find them anywhere in
the, in the fossil record letter C.
The complexity of creatures at every level of the fossil record
disproves evolution. Life appears in all of its
amazing complexity from the very, very beginning.
Here's #5 problem with the fossil record for evolution is
the fossil record exhibits stability or stasis.
You've heard of homeostasis, same state, the stability of
species rather than change. And that's a big problem for
evolutionists as well. Here's Letter A Creatures not
only appear in the fossil record fully formed, as we already
talked about, but they also retain the same form and habits
throughout their existence, even over supposed millions of years.
There are bats in layers that are 150 million years old, and
there are bats in layers that are supposedly 50 million years
old that are the exact same. There's no change in the 100
million years between those bats.
If evolution was constantly evolving and creatures were
constantly evolving through evolution, then there should be
changes in 100 million years. The problem for evolutionists is
there are no changes between the 150 million year old bats and
the 50 million year old bats. There's no change at all.
Now obviously we know that that's that, that the earth and
history that we have from the Bible doesn't give near that
much time. 6 to maybe 7000 years old is the oldest.
The Earth could be maybe 10,000 years old at the very, very
oldest, not millions of years. So we know it didn't happen over
millions of years anyway. But even on top of that, it's a
big problem for evolution. It's because 100 million years
and everything is supposed to be gradually changing and there's
no change in 100 million years between the creatures that are
buried at those oldest layers and the creatures that are
buried in the youngest layers. That's a problem for them.
It's a huge problem for them because it just, it just proves
that everything has stayed the same, that the evolution, the,
the change that that evolution requires just didn't happen,
especially the way that they said it did.
So there's a lot of different quotes by a lot of different
evolutionists. Even this is 1 from Johns
Hopkins University, he said. I've demonstrated A biological
stability for species of animals and plants that I think would
have shocked Darwin. Something tends to prevent the
wholesale restructuring of species.
Wonder what that something could be.
Maybe it's God, huh? Maybe the Bible is true after
all. But this is this is a bat that
supposedly dated to 50 million years old looks very, very, very
similar to a bat that you'd see today if you saw a bat skeleton
and and and saw what his bat skeleton looks like.
It looks very, very, very similar to that bat because the
problem is there have been no changes Letter B.
This proves that layers of sediment.
I'm sorry, I'm, I'm, I'm jumping ahead, letter B on the top.
The stability of creatures disproves Darwinism.
If evolution is true, living things would continue to change.
All right, Number six, the uniformitarian view is now
rejected even by evolutionists. Now I've got to do this very,
very quickly because Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin, Thomas
Huxley, those were all men who were very popular during that
time and helped popularize the idea of evolution.
Thomas Huxley was called Charles Darwin's bulldog.
He was called Darwin's bulldog because he was the one that was
out there. Charles Darwin was not a very
outspoken guy. He was not a guy that was out
there doing all these speeches and championing evolution.
Although he wrote the book. Thomas Huxley, who was also a
Bible critic, found Charles Darwin's book and he became the
champion for the cause of evolution.
He was the one that was giving speeches and being very
passionate about getting this idea of evolution out to the
masses. And so he was one of them.
And then Charles Lyell also was a student of Charles Darwin.
And Charles Lyell came up with the idea of uniformitarianism.
And uniformitarianism basically says that everything continues
at the same rate as it always has.
So you look at the river in the bottom of the Grand Canyon and
you can tell that the the the river at the bottom of the Grand
Canyon is carving itself, carving itself deeper by 1 inch
per year. So if we take that calculation,
then we can see how deep the Grand Canyon is, and we can say
that it took this many millions of years for the Grand Canyon to
form. OK.
Even evolutionists reject that idea today because it's very,
very, very easy to see that those things happen even today.
Look at the floods that just happened in Texas, right?
A small Little River that gets a massive flood can carve A
gigantic river in a matter of an A couple hours or a day, let
alone millions of years, right? Even through rock layers.
There's been a lot of evidence of that.
And, and, and I'll try to share some of this with you.
I may have to do this next week. I want to finish this for you
without just kind of leaving you hanging.
But maybe, maybe we'll, maybe we'll do this in Sunday school
next week because I'm pretty much out of time.
I don't want to go too long, and I want to explain a little bit
more of this for you. Brother Josh is going to be
surprised to find out that he's not teaching Sunday school next
week. But I just want to give you a
little bit more in the way of this because there's so much,
there's so much to this. But the fossil record is really
the greatest evidence that we have against evolution and in
favor of creation. Obviously, you look at the ape
men, it's very easy to prove that they're not evolutionary,
right? They're either ape, they're man,
or they're fake, right? There's a lot of other things
that that prove evolution is not true and prove that creation is
true. And I'm not just saying that
give us evidence. I'm talking about that prove
that evolution is not true, right?
And like I like I'm saying with this, even the evolutionists
agree that uniformitarianism, and this is one of their biggest
arguments for years and years, Uniformitarianism, look, look,
everything's, everything's the same as it always has been.
Even they reject this idea now they've moved down from it
because they're saying you're right.
There's no way that this proves evolution.
They're still not saying creation is how everything got
here, but they're willing to move the goal posts.
Now, let's just say and Charles Lyell with this idea of
uniformitarianism, the past is the key to the present is has
been disproven so many times that even evolutionists, the
majority, if not all of them say, OK, you're right.
Unitarian uniformitarianism is not, is not true.
We know that because we can see it.
And you look at volcanoes that erupt and how they completely
changed the landscape in just a matter of hours.
And it's just, it's enough to say that the past is not the key
to the present, right. So we'll, we'll discuss this
next week. I'll finish this out.
Maybe I'll slow down a little bit and give you the last of it
a little bit slower and give you give you a few more things that
go along with that. But let's pray and then we'll
we'll finish up for this morning.
Father, again, we thank you so much for your goodness to us.
We thank you for the opportunity that we have to just prove that
the word of God is is is not only reliable and true, but that
we can stand on it. We can, we can trust in it
everything that we find in it, not just these.
Stories of creation and the flood and all of these other
things, but every part of it is true and we thank you for that.
I pray that you would just help us to be stronger in our faith
when it comes to these things and be able to give an answer to
every man that asketh the reason of the hope that is found in us
through Jesus Christ. And may this be a help to us as
we go forward. Thank you again for all you do
for us in Jesus name, Amen.