What the World Needs Now
4 The Genesis Conflict - Where Mammals Reigned
[MUSIC PLAYING] Right, this lecture is called "Where Mammals Rained." Because we're going to deal with the creatures that are higher up in the geological column. And we want to find out where they came from, where they're very different to what they are today. Is this a strange world that existed in the past that does not reflect the present? Here we have the geological periods. Remember that after the Cretaceous, which is this marine sediment layer with all the calcium carbonate deposits, we have these upper layers over here, which are known as the Cenozoic. And in these layers, we also have marine organisms and all these strange little creatures that we find lower down, many, many of them. But then we also have the mammals and the birds and some human fossils. And the question is, where do they come from? Well, this is an exhibit in the Museum of Natural History in London, and it's called Mammal Graveyard. The fossilized remains of an antelope, a gazelle, a horse, and a carnivore are preserved in the slab. The fossils are surrounded by floodplain deposits, suggesting that the animals were swept together by torrential floods. There is no weathering and little damage to the fossils, so they must have been buried quickly. That's interesting, because that is what it says on the board when you're looking at this fossil. So they're acknowledging that this can only have happened during a flood. But of course, they put it into a floodplain. That's the only way they can deal with this. So they say, well, a river came down and washed them away. These rivers stretched over huge areas, whole continents. Those were big rivers. The whole world was underwater. And how would you imagine animals as diverse as herbivores, carnivores, gazelles, all of these things washed together at the same time? If you look at those upper layers, we have bone fragments in stone in the tertiary like this, mammal bones, chipped broken bones. And you have conglomerates like this. Here you have fossil bones in stones. Look at all of those. It's incredible. What happened over here? Well, what about this? Fossil graveyards where you have thousands of mammals just buried in mass graves. This is not evolution. This is catastrophism. These animals were washed together during a catastrophe. Now, mammals and birds tend to float, because they bloat. When they rot, they blow up and they float. So if you can cast your mind to a flood catastrophe, where you have creatures floating around up there in the water rotting away, some of them being buried early, in other words, the full creature, rapidly buried, others floating there, maybe for a long period of time, rotting away, disarticulating, and then being buried. And you have these massive graveyards. Now, was this just a flood plain? How would you explain this? There's another exhibit from the museum, buried alive. These sea urchins, together with some starfish and sea lilies, were buried very rapidly retaining their spines. Was this an under-ocean flood? Does that make any sense? Why were the creatures under the oceans also buried rapidly? The only solution is that we had a catastrophe with tremendous mud flows flowing under water, whether on land or under the ocean. This has got nothing to do with a flood plain, because you could not explain that with a flood plain. So there must have been some universal catastrophe. This was the Bangladesh flood some years ago, and you can see the animals and even humans floating together here in this water. So where do the mammals come from? How did they evolve? What is science teach? Science tells us that the mammals arose from reptiles, and that these then roamed upon the earth. Originally, they were together, then the mammals gained the ascendancy. Well, that's absolute nonsense, because we have reptiles and mammals today. The only ascendancy that we have is in the mind, because we happen to be able to think about these things. Well, where did the marine mammals come from? What does science teach about them? Well, obviously, since they're mammals, and mammals arose from reptiles, then they arose on land. Isn't that what science says? So they must have arisen on the land. So how did they get to look like they look? How do these manatees and the seals and the walruses? How did they get to look like they look? Well, science teachers literally this. Creatures evolved on the land, and they were walking around on the land very much like they do today. And then they went into the ocean, secondarily back again. And there they eventually lost their legs, developed tails, changed their entire anatomy, and that's why they are like they are today. Well, if this is so, shouldn't there be something in between a land mammal that looks like a cow, a eutherian land mammal, something that looks like a cow to something that looks like a whale? Shouldn't there be something in between? Yes or no? There's nothing. And don't come with little bone chips here in the hips of the whales. Those are fully functional today, and if you took them away, that creature would have a major problem, because they are muscle attachments to it, which deal with the rectal area, and with deal with reproduction, and all things like that. It's got nothing to do with the limb. So what happened to these creatures? How did they appear? Well, they appear in the fossil record. Well, that cannot be. Science cannot tolerate that. Surely there must be something that happened. How do these creatures come into existence? You know, they are not only here anatomical problems. There are huge physiological problems. The whole blood parameter, everything has to change in order to deal with staying underwater for very long periods of time, et cetera, et cetera. So this is a major, major problem. Did they develop from the land, or did they not? Well, we have huge marine mammals like whales, for example. And you can get to be very big when you are living in the water and what is science teach. Well, he has a typical example, ancestral links present 60 million years ago. You had a hypothetical Meson kids skeleton. And then we have, again, nothing to go on except animals that are fully formed existing. And they take them up. And they say, well, umbilicitis, night hunts, probably walked on land. And they have an example there, or rotoacetis. And they have one over there, which is much like a seal that lives around today. And then you have the modern tooth whales. But the origin is, what does it say there? Hypothetical, which simply means what? It doesn't exist. That's what it means. Now, what about those that they try to put on the line? Well, here they have one. Passicetus, that's the ancestor of the whales and the porpoises. That's one of the modern candidates. Where they get him from? Well, here's a skull, land mammal, reconstructed from what? From a jaw and skull fragments. It's amazing how you can get the legs and the tail and everything from a jaw fragment. Isn't that incredible? Science is pretty inventive. Well, this creature probably never looked like that and certainly had nothing to do with whales. But there is nothing else. So let's invent this anatomy. Or umbilicitis had hind limbs, was obviously able to walk. You need imaginative reconstruction to even attempt linking with the whales. Here's another funny looking skull over here, basillosaurus. A serpentine creature, not related to whales, had functional hind limbs, too tiny for walking, probably used for grasping and reproduction. So they have some creatures that existed in the past that don't exist today, but they have nothing linking it to the whales. So this is pure conjecture, major, major problems. Here you have bears that swim. And in the origin of species, Darwin speculated that whales had evolved from bears that swim. Yeah, because there is nothing else. There is nothing else. Oh, scientists will tell you we have some evolution of where the opening of the blowhole sits. That's just variation. It's got nothing to do with evolution, moving it backwards or forwards. We have people today that look very different. And animals today within the same group that look very different. So there is absolutely nothing. When they appear, they appear. Now, here's a study that was done by Raul Esparante of Geoscience Institute on the whale fossils that we find. And this is the order, the baleen whales, the ones, you know, that filter all the material out. And here's the other one, the tooth whales. And they did a study at an area in South America here, around Peru, that is called the Pisco formation. And it's so-called Myocene Pleiocene. And it's got all these whales. Here is a complete area study of what they found. The black dots are incomplete whales, and the red dots are complete whales. Huge numbers of whales just buried over there. And here's a whale distribution abundance in some of the other areas, just huge numbers. Now, what happens today when a whale dies? Well, you'll get eaten up in the sea, and there'll be nothing left of him. But sometimes, whales get stranded. What happens to them? This is what happens to a modern whale carcass. What happens is a whale carcass can sink or float, or it can reach the shoreline. That's the bottom line. Here you have whale skeletons on the coast. What happens to them? Look at the bones lying around. Very soon, they are disauticulated, dispersed, and abraded. So you have pieces lying all over today. That's what happens today. That's what you see. Here you have a carcass lying on the sea. Whale carcasses on the sea floor of Santa Catalina Basin. Very soon, they become disauticulated. The bones fall apart, and then there are pieces missing. And you have scavengers coming, shops taking a bite, eating this, whatever. And very soon, there's nothing left. That's what happens today. But that didn't happen with the fossils. There they are. Look at that. That's a fully whale. That's a fully formed whale. And here you have eight whales in a radius of 50 meters, and that's quite something considering the size of a whale. Huge creature lying there, fully formed. Very strange. And if we look at some individual specimens, baleen preserved, shark teeth associated, but no shark tooth marks on the bone. So other animals were buried together with them, not only the whales. Completely articulated specimen. Upside down, both flippers reserved. This creature was buried, how? Instantly. Instantly. What berries are whale in the ocean instantly? Does it make any sense? Certainly not today. Here's another one. Upside down, completely articulated, shark teeth associated, but no shark tooth marks on the bone. So one limb missing. Buried today. You wouldn't find anything like that today. Bones are well preserved, another specimen. No evidence of invertebrate activity on the bones, or in the associated sediment. Well, that wouldn't happen today. If a whale died, the creatures would come, and you'd have the scavengers eating all over the place. Nothing. These creatures are just gone. Buried? This whale reached the sea floor with a head almost detached. So if you have a catastrophe and you imagine you think I'm scooting things. Flung around with such force that some of them are snapped and buried, that makes sense. Here's another one, partly disarticulated, head separated from the body. One limb partially preserved, a shark teeth associated, no shark tooth marks on the bones. This was a major catastrophe. He has one entirely disarticulated. So this was maybe floating a little bit longer, started disarticulating, and then buried. Now skull found, two mandibles, et cetera. You have the whole spectrum. Look at this. Five specimens with their baleen plates were found. Here are the baleen plates. That's what a modern one looks like. There they are in these fossils, completely intact. Now, what does it consist of? It's the same material as your fingernails or your hair. Since baleen is made of keratin, it does not last as long as bone when the animal dies and decays. The currents of baleen plates preserve, indicates that rapid burial had to happen. Here are these marine creatures. Do you know that they find whales in the upright position? Buried. Wow. If there was slow sedimentation, there was a patient whale waiting to be covered. That doesn't make any sense. And not only that, you find layers of fish remains are found at several horizons with diatoms and all kinds of fish debris layers, fish debris layers, diatom layers, all of this buried together. This was a catastrophe. No other explanation. Conclusions. The large numbers of individuals with mandibles, vertebrate, articulated indicates that most of the whales reached the sea floor and became buried before this articulation could happen, even before the predators could get at any animal that was floating. This also suggests rapid deposition of the sediments covering the carcass in order to preserve the bone association. It's the only possible solution. So the marine mammals appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed, and they're buried like nothing happens today. This is catastrophism. There's no other solution. So now let's think about this. Let's mull these thoughts over. Imagine you have this huge catastrophic flood in which many, many creatures are buried, those that float in the top layers, for example. And then after the flood, the waters cover the earth, and you have all these millions of creatures floating in the water with fish debris, some areas. You have huge forest beds floating in the water, and this has to then be covered up again. What would they do? Those that are buried early or buried intact, those that start rotting and deteriorating, when they are buried, they are buried in pieces, disarticulated, and you would find whole beds with rocks in them, with material in them, with fish debris in them, with bones in them. That's exactly what we find, as we saw it over there. Now, this is an interesting fossil. This is Persian ironwood. There's the present day leaf. There's a fossil, and this one occurs in the upper layers in, for example, Europe, where it doesn't grow today because it's too cold. So imagine if this water came up from the bottom of the great deep and it was bursting forth, and what temperature would it come up? Well, subthermal water or subterranean water today is hot water, so it's a thermal spring, if you like. So this water could have been generally warm, and the oceans could have had a relatively high temperature, very humid, very much like, you know, your area. Nice, warm, hot environment after the flood. Here we have mammals. This is a bat. When a bat is found in the fossil record, it's complete. It's a bat. There's nothing leading up to a bat, nothing leading away from the bat, the bat is a bat. Fully formed. The only difference is many of these were much larger than those living today. So imagine a very wet world re-establishing itself after the flood. This here is an area in Scotland, which is a very cold country, where you have this lush growth of plants because the Gulf stream passes by here. So very warm, and so these plants are enormous. This is a typical tropical area. You can see great plant coverage, warm temperatures, rain, lots of rain, lush growth, lots of food around, and typically the tertiary in the textbooks is displayed like this. Very green, very warm, and all these creatures that walked around so different apparently from what lives today. Why? Because they were so huge. The giant elephants, mastodons, totally different to what we have today, lived some 65 million years ago, and today they don't exist anymore. Or this creature over here, the giant land-walking sloth, or the giant bison, or the giant saber-toothed tiger, or the giant beaver, or the giant this and the giant that, what have they got in common? They're all giants. That's it. Much bigger than today. These are beetles from the Amazon. This is a cold season, and that's a warm season. Massive change in shape and size. Now, I want to take you to the Lebri Topots. Who's been there before? Ah, somebody has been there. Now, I stood there at the Lebri Topots, with my camera, staring down at the tall, waiting for something to happen. And people came to me and they all came and looked, "What is there?" There was nothing. So they thought, "Well, maybe this guy is totally nuts." What was I waiting for? Well, I got it. Can you see it? That's a bubble. I was standing there, waiting to photograph a bubble. Only a nut would do that. But I had method in my madness. What was I doing? Photographing a bubble that came up periodically. And in those days, you know, you didn't have digital cameras. You had to get the picture quick, otherwise it was gone, like that one I missed. You only have a relic of it, but there I got it. Bluh, bluh, bluh. There it was. And coming up today. Now, here is the tar at the bottom, and there's obviously some crack, or crevice in the ground, and the tar is being pushed up and ends up at the top. Obviously, this is decaying organic matter down there, and it is under pressure. So that's what pushes this up. The same happens if you strike oil. You're living in an oil-rich area here, Texas, all of these places. And if you strike oil, and you strike a good one, then out it comes at the top. Why? Because it's under pressure. 20,000 pounds per square inch pressure. That's pretty incredible. Now, here at the library, there's a crack in the ground, and I can actually watch the bubble rise. Ooh, there it comes. How old am I told? The soil is. Millions and millions of years old. How old am I told the star is? Millions and millions and millions of years old. Have you ever had a glass of soda pop, and you watched the bubbles rise? Or you lift the top off, and you come back after an hour, and you want to pour yourself one again. Why? What happened? It's flat. That's what we say, it's flat. The bubbles are gone. Where'd they go to? They disappeared into the atmosphere. Now, isn't it incredible that rock is porous, that this oil is buried under porous rock where gas escapes? Isn't it incredible that here you have a crack in the ground? That means you have left the top off the bottle, but the bubbles still come up today. How many millions of years do you think this is old? How long has it been bubbling down there? This is impossible. This cannot be very old. The only reason why it's still bubbling is because it is a huge deposit that still has trapped gases from the decay. So we're talking short chronology here. We're not talking millions of years. The fact that when you strike oil, it shoots out the top, means that the cap is pretty well sealed still, but rock is porous. That gas has been escaping all the time. The fact that it's still there, that pressure tells us not long ago. But that's not my point. Tar and oil is a consequence of the catastrophe. So when the waters covered the earth and the continents were raised up, then this flooded down and all this was reburied. You would also have this huge algal bloom that was then buried, and you'd have these masses of organic material buried under these layers with all these bone chips in them now. And that's the oil and the tar that we find today. That's all it is, organic matter rapidly buried. And tar and oil is therefore a post catastrophe phenomenon. Now these creatures come, and they think this is a pond or whatever, and they walk in, but because it's tar, you can't get your leg out anymore. So as you pull the one leg out, what happens to the other leg? It goes deeper in. And so you try the other way, and so you just disappear and down you go. And as these animals realize that they can't get away, they screech in terror. And what is that attract? Carnivores, so the carnivores come running and they attack the animals and they themselves get trapped in the tar. So in the tar, you have a strange assembly. You have more carnivores than you have herbivores. That's not normal, that's not natural. So it's not a natural phenomenon. What has happened here is these animals were trapped because they can. And we have the saber tooth tiger. That's what he looked like, strange creature in the past. In the tar, you dig up a giant mastodon. You dig up a giant sloth. There's one over there. In a trip to South America, some scientists were traveling there and they came across a hot siena, it's a farm. And there was the skin displayed at the entrance, the farmer had put a skin up, and they wondered what the heck is that? They'd never seen anything like it. So they went and asked, you know, what is that? And he said, come on, show you. So he took them to a cave. And there were bodies of these creatures lying there with the skins still intact. Do you know that in Australia, there are certain cave areas where the oxygen levels are slightly different than outside. And there you find giant kangaroos, giant kangaroos lying over there, supposedly millions of years old, with their skins still intact. Do you believe that? Well, it's a fact, but certainly you would have to modify the millions of years. So some people believe that maybe these creatures are still alive today in the jungles, and some have even ventured to try and find them. Of course, they would probably be smaller than what they were then, giant bison's much larger than the present bison, but then it's just a bison, that's all it is. So in the breed, you dig down into the tar by boarding it up and taking the tar up, and then you find these creatures in there, and then you find a saber tooth tiger. Do you only find a saber tooth? No, you find a normal tooth and a smaller tooth. In fact, you find a whole range. This is an extreme of the range. This would be like taking the dogs and taking the sunburnard and saying, that's what lived in the past. And today we have a kewawa. You see what I mean? It's exactly the same scientific phenomenon. So actual fact, what they should do is they should put the chihuahua plus the entire range in between up to the Great Dane down there and say, that's what we found, isn't that right? But what are the textbooks displayed? The extreme of the range, why? Because that's exciting. That's different. That's something we don't have today. Today we have tigers with teeth that look like this. In the past, there was a greater variety. Why? Well, imagine animals taking over on a new world. And you have this vast country in front of you, a whole new world to be occupied. Lots of space, very little competition. When you have little competition, then you have great variety. And then when the pressure starts taking place and the animals start competing more with each other for space and food, well, then these things happen. Do you know that if we take an animal from the mainland, let's say sheep or goats or horses or whatever you like, and you take them to an island and you leave them there? Guess what happens? Within just a very few generations, the size of those animals goes (hisses) In fact, the size can go down to one third of the original size. Why? Remember I showed you the horses on Iceland? The difference between them and the horses on the mainland that they came from is that they shrunk in size, at least by a third, in a very short time. Why? Because they are competing for resources on an island. And when you compete for resources on an island, eventually you run out of space. That's what happens. And so one of the adaptations to this is not to grow so much. Why? Well, firstly, because you're getting less food, because you're competing with everyone else, so they stay smaller. A smaller animal eats less than a big animal. Has a higher metabolism, yes, but eats less than a big animal. So if you reduce the size, naturally you can have more animals on the same place. So very quickly, just the environment changes the size. Has that got anything to do with evolution? No. Japanese before the war. What do they look like? How did the cartoons depict the Japanese before the war? They used to have the Americans standing over there, yay high, something like Malenko over there, you know? Big guy. And then they'd have the Japanese standing on a huge box just to get to the same level, isn't that right? Because they were tiny, why? Because their diet was totally different to what it is today. Today, their diet is far more varied. They have far more varieties of protein sources in their diets, and what do the Japanese look like today? Totally different. Some Japanese are pretty, have you watched Japanese basketball players? Have you seen them? Some of them are pretty big, right? And you say, wow, what happened to them, you know? Did they suddenly evolve into supergiant snow? Their lifestyle has changed. So size, lifestyle, these things go together. Just because something is big doesn't make a difference. So what was a master dog? It was a big elephant. What was a giant bison? What was a big bison? What was a giant wolf? What was a giant wolf? Big deal. There was no evolution there. And here you have a giant wolf, it's called dire wolf. Different animals, no, exactly the same as a modern wolf. The only difference is it was bigger. So we have to make it something marvelous and different, no. So the environment was obviously warmer, better adapted for rapid growths and all of these features, and that's what they looked like. And then something happened. And ice age came along. And the world today is very different to what it was then. And where did all this ice come from? And how long has it been around? And what does science teach on the issue? Well, it teaches that there were a number of ice ages, three ice ages at least. And they conjecture this from looking at scrapes in the rocks. Do you remember a video I showed you yesterday of these huge boulders being rolled in a flat? Do you remember that? What did you see in the rocks at the bottom? Huge scrapes. So water can do that too. So the only evidence of ice is what is now in the South Pole and in the North Pole. That's it. So the question is, where did all this ice come from? And they will tell you that there is evidence for ice having been around for many, many years, 100,000 years at least where they get the evidence from? Well, they drill down through the ice cores, right? And they come up with this. Here's an ice core that they've drilled in Greenland. And they say, well, OK, look at this ice. You can see that there are different colors. There's a color. There's another ring, another ring, another ring, another ring, another ring, another ring, another ring, another ring, and another ring, and another ring, and another one. And you count them all up and you make a deduction. You say, each ring represents one year. And if I count 100,000 years, then this ice has been around there for 100,000 seasons. Logical, right or wrong. Perfectly logical. And we're supposed to believe that this is what happened. And we know how it is being compacted today. Well, during the war, some airplanes used to fly across that area. And that's about 50 years ago, some old aircraft. And some of them happened to crash in Greenland. And there they were in this vast ice desert, and nobody ever bothered. Well, recently, some of those have been rediscovered, and they actually dug them up. And they're covered by huge quantities of ice. So they dug down to them. And if you look into the ice as we go down, you find hundreds and hundreds of those ring layers. So those airplanes have been buried for thousands of years. Right? So obviously, these rings are not your rings, just like the valves. So we cannot say that this ice age is 100,000 years because of the ice cores. Those are event layers. A storm creates them. And you can have many, many storms in a season. It doesn't have to be millions of years. Now, if you have a warm ocean originally, lots of evaporation, and then something happens to make it suddenly cold, what would happen? And how did it happen? This is at the Basket Glacier. And we find this glacier in Canada. It's a huge glacier, and it's not a very good idea to go walking on a glacier. Although I did go and walk on a glacier. Because you have these glacial rivers, and there's one flowing, and it just disappears suddenly, and it's gone. If you slip, and you end up in that river, you're gone. Now we will ever find you again. You'll end up somewhere under the glacier. And here are markers of where the glacier has been over the years. And there is a remarkable recession of the glacier. It's just going back to ch, ch, ch, ch, ch. And they discover that if they calculate this out, then this whole ice age idea of hundreds of thousands of years is reduced to 600 years. 600 years for complete glaciation and deglaciation. Glaciers cause you tubes or you basins. So this is a glacial basin up there in the north of Canada. Obviously, the ice was there, and the ice was gone. There's a glacial river, there's a glacial lake. Something must have happened to trigger such an ice age. Maybe there were some meteor impacts. It's a possibility. And that caused some cracks and strange occurrences on the Earth. Is there evidence of this? The answer is yes. If you look at the surface of the present Earth, you have giant impact craters. For example, here, the great Arizona crater. You have huge craters in Siberia. You have enormous craters all along and meteor impact sites in Africa. And the Earth must have been bombarded. But you don't find meteors in any of the rest of the geological column. So it doesn't seem as if this existed before. It's all on top. And if you look at these craters and where they occurred, this must have really caused some catastrophe on the Earth. And maybe this was the cause of the great volcanic eruptions that must have existed in the past. One little mountain, Mount St Helens, put so much dust into the atmosphere that the world temperature average dropped by one degree centigrade, because it shielded the sun. Krakatua was four times as strong, four times as big as Mount St Helens. And Krakatua dropped the world average temperature by four degrees centigrade. One volcano. What do you think 80,000 volcanoes going off at the same time would do? Can you imagine it? Can we even imagine it? If you go to Washington State, you have all this lava lying on top, huge districts of lava. You have these great volcanic dikes, everything's on the top. And there they are, volcanic dikes, great volcanic activity. There was the explosion of one volcano, Mount St Helens, 500 Hiroshima atomic bombs going off at the same time. And there was a Mickey Mouse volcano, tiny compared to the others. Now, here is the Great Ring of Fire, where you have all this great volcanic activity. Then you have the Mid-Oceanic Ridge in the Atlantic, which ends up in Iceland, huge quantities of dust being blown into the air. What would that do in terms of the temperature? Well, it would totally shield the sun for a while, and you would get a massive drop in temperature. And if you have warm oceans, you'd have lots of evaporation, and sudden cold, and you would get ice. And glaciers would form and rush and expand across the continents, but all along the coasts, what would you have? Nice, temperate, warm climates. Just like in Scotland, I showed you those lush growths in this icy country where the Gulf Stream is nice and warm. So if you had elephants living in Russia, for example, where would the populations be able to survive? They would be able to survive in the north, up against the ocean, which is warm, and they would survive in the south, where it is warm. So there must have been two elephant populations separated by huge glaciers which covered the land. And we have evidence of these animals living in this cold environment. Yes, burning mountain nature reserve. This is in Australia, very interesting place. It's been burning there for several thousands of years. Burning mountain is caused by a slow burning of thick underground coal seams, very interesting stuff. And it's a reasonable estimate of the fire's duration would be about 5,000 years. Very interesting. If you go walking over there, you see this evidence of all this heat and volcanism and crashing down of area where the material has burnt underneath, and all this burnt material coming out from the bottom, and the sulphur appearing at the top, would have been the source of the travellers' speculation, explorers. All of these peoples were there, mysteries, and legends are there about burning mountain. And what the pioneers have said, and there you have this great evidence of something burning underground. And of course, the kangaroos love it. This is kangaroo dropping. They think this is a heater in the middle of the night. You have great cavities in the ground there. The stench sometimes is unbelievable. That's why you close your nose. And the mammoths rained in that time period. So here were these creatures in this area when there was this great volcanism, great ice started to form, and the populations were cut into. It's just a theory. And then they developed this long hair. Here's another interesting story, the story of dry falls. These cliffs are skeletal remains of what was once the world's largest waterfall. They bear stark witness of the tremendous power of catastrophic floods that swept over eastern Washington at the end of the last ice age. The falls began 20 miles to the south, but receded upstream through powerfully roasts of action. The retreat of the falls gave birth to the canyon below, etc., etc. Science today admits that this was a catastrophe. You know, a few years ago, they didn't admit this. It took millions of years for these things to form. So suddenly, modern science is beginning to realize that things in the ice age also could have happened rapidly, needn't have taken millions of years. So these great falls over here didn't take millions of years to carve this. Now, what about these creatures? There they are today to be found trapped in ice. Mammoths trapped in ice. What happened? Now, you see, when the ice is present in the ice age and the oceans are warm and there's food in the north and there's food in the south. In England, we find reindeer, hippopotami, crocodiles buried in the same region. Now, that's very weird. That's what we call a disharmonious fossil assemblage. Creatures that don't belong together, buried together. But if you imagine this cold period, pulling the animals further south, so the cold adapted ones, like the reindeer, and along the oceans, still warm, then you could get this all together. That seems to make sense. Now, when you dig these creatures out of the ice, they are, today, still very much intact. And you can dig them out and some of the meat is still edible, like this creature over there. Totally edible. So, when did they live? If the meat is still edible, how old are they? Millions of years? How long can you keep your meat in a freezer? They say a year, then you should throw it out. Well, dogs can eat this stuff, still. So, how long have the mammals been around? How long have these mastodons been around? We will talk about that in the next session. We were talking about these mammals, these giant mastodons that lived, supposedly, millions of years ago. And there they are, trapped in the ice, in the north in Siberia. Now, imagine this scenario. When ice melts, it absorbs a huge amount of energy in order to melt. That's simple physics. It is far easier to warm up water than to change it from one state to another. It absorbs huge quantities of energy. So, we see that the ice receded very rapidly. We see this in the glaciers. And as this ice melts, it absorbs huge quantities of energy. And ice that melts is fresh water. So, this huge meltdown would have rushed down the coasts into the oceans. And being fresh water, where would it end up? It would float on top of the ocean, because seawater is more dense than fresh water. So, originally, it would all mix. A lot of the fresh water would be on top. And at night, it gets freezing cold. What happens to that water? It freezes. And so, during the melt phase, suddenly, there was a giant freeze, and everything froze up. And the oceans that were the source of life up there in the north, and that gave this lush vegetation all along the coastlines, suddenly froze up. And the world became an ice world in the north, because that's where it would then be colder. And the animals walked, and they were buried, and they ended up in the ice. And science tells us that these creatures lived there some 60 to 40 million years ago. But then they had a problem, because with the evolution of man, they put the evolution of man at about 3 million years, 3.5 million years, with modern man being around some 1.5 million years. And, unfortunately, they found spearheads in the mastodons. Oops. Big problem. What do you do? Well, you could either take man back to 65 million years, 40 million years ago, or you would have to do what? You'd have to bring the mastodon forward 65, 40 million years ago. Which one of those two you think they opted for? Obviously, bringing the mastodon forward, why? Because, obviously, we're the greatest thing on the planet, right? We must be the latest. So, we were there last, say everything else must shift up if the theory doesn't fit anymore. Can you see how they can take 60 million years and throw them in the waste paper basket, just like that? If the proof shows that they must, or they had no choice, especially when they found cave drawings in France, where there's a mastodon. So, man, obviously, was there when the mastodon was there. So, these creatures all frozen in ice. There are many interesting theories about how these creatures up there were frozen in ice. Not only mastodons, by the way, all kinds of animals. Buried in ice, all of a sudden. Warm adapted animals, even. Buried in ice. This is very, very, very strange. Some theories say that there was some big celestial snowball that came down and buried them in almost liquid nitrogen freeze conditions. But if we stay here on Earth, then, you know, we can have a pretty logical theory as well as to how it came about that these creatures were buried in ice. And definitely man, and these creatures were contemporaneous. Again, that blew their theory right out of the water. So, let's have a look at the dawn of man. One thing is for sure. We don't have the propensity of fossils for man that we would expect. Why not? Well, think about this. Man is a very gregarious creature, and he tends to gather in societies. Isn't that correct? Today, we live in cities. Where do we find the largest population? In the cities. That's where you would find most of mankind in the cities. Now, God, according to the Bible, destroyed man of the face of the earth, and he destroyed the whole of the creation as well of the then-time world. And if this is so, then the reason given is that he destroyed them because of sin. Is that what the Bible says? Okay. So obviously, sinful man was the main target. The rest is there as evidence because the animals were everywhere, but man was relatively localized, except for those that, like today, like to live in the outback, but they would be scarce. Now, where do we find the greatest evidence of the flood today? That would be interesting, because obviously, the greatest evidence of the flood would be there where sin in inverted commas would be the greatest. Would that make sense? Now, where do we find the greatest evidence of the flood today? Unfortunately, we do not find it on land. We find it under the ocean. If you go to the Pacific Ocean, for example, there are canyons under that ocean four times bigger than the Grand Canyon. Now, canyons don't happen underwater. They happen because water rushes through the area in a flood. So, what does that tell us? That that was once where? On top. That was once land. What is now underneath there was once land. And there is great evidence of activity down there which tells us that a tremendous flood catastrophe happened under there. All right, that's logical. So, is it possible that the great cities with all the merriads of human fossils are perhaps buried in sediments under the ocean? That's a possibility. All right, let's go back to legends. When do legends say the pre-flood world is today? Have you ever heard of the legend of Atlantis? Where do they say that is? Under the ocean. All right, if we don't like that, what does occultism teach? Occultism. That's a very interesting subject. The occult world and its secret knowledge. What does that teach? Where were the ancient people and where are they today? They are buried under the sea. That's what they teach. That's what occultism teaches. If you get the great books of masonry, for example, the great articles that they have, they will tell you that they were under the sea. That's very interesting. So, what we have is a scattering here and there with a great bulk of them, not there. The animals you would have everywhere because they were everywhere except perhaps in a large extent where man lived. Just like it is today. You don't have elephants and lions and reindeer running through the streets of New York every day, do you? So, why would it have been different then? So, here's the dawn of man and we are told that man lived or the ancestors of man lived in the trees and then came down from the trees because the climate changed or whatever and we started getting grassland and then the creatures walking there between the grass had to adapt to the new environment. They couldn't look over the grass because it was to talk so they stood on their hind legs to peer over the top and eventually they started walking upright. Now, firstly, that's not even scientific. That's total rubbish because that would be what we call lemarchism. That means an animal starts doing what it does because it wants to achieve a certain state. We'll talk about lemarchism and Darwinism in another lecture. It's not scientific but nevertheless, that's apparently what happened and modern humans looked like this and there was some transition from the state of walking on or falls up to the upright gate and the world would like us to constantly be reminded where we come from. So, how man began was a Time magazine article not too long ago and they show a man over here and notice again the scratches in the blood. Why? Because it shows his primitive nature, his vicious primitive diabolical past. That's what it shows. And here, he had an article in Time magazine, a previous one, How Man Begin and 2.5 million years ago. And in case we have a new generation in a couple of years, they'll bring out a new one and it'll say How Man Begin and you'll go through the whole retmorro. So that every generation is reminded that this is our origin, very primitive, very vicious, very wild. Now, scientists generally get angry when you say to them they evolved from the monkeys because science doesn't teach that. You must understand the theory as it is. We did not come from the monkeys. Science teaches that the monkeys and man are end products of an evolutionary process. They are all there together. The ancestor of both of them is somewhere lower down. So, the real ancestor is probably this one over here, the tree shrew. And notice that the eyes are on the sides of the head. And so, the animal evolved so that the eyes move to the front. Now, if you have the eyes on the front, then you can triangulate and that would supposedly give you a selective advantage in judging distance and jumping from branch to branch. Of course, the tree shrew never misses a jump. So, what the selective advantage is, no one really knows, but that is the theory of how the brain increased in size. And of course, they were arboreal. They lived in the trees. So, the climate changed and the trees started disappearing and they started coming down. And when they were up there in the trees, they were perfectly happy with their bananas and their leaves and the things that they eat. Vegetation. But when they were on the plains, their original plant life was not so readily available. So, one day, they picked up a club and clobbered an animal to death and started to eat that. That's the theory if you want to believe that. And man and the apes are end products of an evolutionary process. This comes from textbooks, which shows you that here, there is no evidence. The only evidence we have is at that level and any creature that is buried with them in the past. So, all the fossils that we have, and it's very important that you realize this, all the fossils that exist occur together with man at the same time. Are you with me? Nowhere do you find layers of the one and then the other and the other and the other. That's based on inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossil. So, it's just like giving you all the bones of the dogs and saying arrange them. So, we find all these bones including man in the same layers and we say, okay, scientist, put them out like they evolve. But they were all there at the same time. So, the astralopithecines and the so-called hominid fossils and modern man all existed at the same time. So, we have what we call a morphological sequence, not a palaeontological sequence. It's not how it happened in the rocks, it's how we think it happened from all the bones that we have. Are you with me? Very important difference. So, now, if you look at these monkeys and you look at this man, they all live at the same time, but somehow they hope that the one retained features of something more primitive than the other. Here again, everything happened down there, everything exists at the same time. Our living relatives, those are our relatives, but our ancestors, we don't know what they were like. We have no idea, primate ancestors. And then we have shortest snout and largest snout. Just like I said, you know, if you have a pug, you put him on this side, you have, no, you put him on that side. That's what you do. So, if you looked at this one, what would you say compared to us, primitive or advanced? Primitive, why? Well, we've got flat faces. Have you ever looked in the mirror? Everybody got this little standing out here, if you look in the mirror, and we're flat. So, this one has got a nice long snoot, so it must be not so advanced. This one sort of in between, and that one, well, he's a scientist already. He's getting there. You see, he's nice and so this must be more or less closer to us. And well, now we're getting there. So, this is related to us and probably closer. And science will tell you that if we compare our genes with the chimpanzee, well, we have 98% of genes in common with the chimpanzee, so we must be very much related, correct? Is that what I tell you? Absolutely. Two percent difference. These are structural genes. You know, are huge two percent differences? It's a enormous difference, because the way in which we developed is not necessarily depicted by the genes, but by the expression of the genes, how they are expressed. And that's determined by controlling genes and not by structural genes at all. So, you can get the very similar genes, giving totally different structures. And by the way, we have just about as many genes in common with a mouse. And do you know that we have 76% of genes in common with a banana? So, did we evolve from the banana? Did we? You see, don't be impressed by figures like 98%. It means absolutely nothing. It's actually scientific skull-duggery. It is dishonest to say that in the least. But when it comes to these things and you go to the museum, you see the ape-like ancestors, so-called, sitting there around the campfire with their sticks that they started picking up to club this animal to death so that they had something to eat. Is that right? That's what we are shown. But remember that all of these existed at the same time as modern men. So, this is purely morphological. They find bones and they say, "Okay, this bone, well, he probably represents a more primitive line." Just like to take the modern animals and say, "Well, that one's obviously more primitive than that one." Purely unlocks. And in the case of your own Nebraska man, they had him with sticks and hunting and fireplace and, you know, the whole shooting match based on one tooth that they had found, which happened to turn out to be a pig's tooth. So, this really is scientific inventiveness at its best. We've had many hoaxes in the past trying to bridge the gap like pulled down man, for example, shown in 1953 to be a forgery composed of an orangutan mandible and parts of a modern human cranium. So, there have been forgeries to try and get this across. We've had many, many forgeries where people try and imprint or show evidence which they want to find. Now, the modern theory says that man evolved out of Africa. That's the prevalent theory today. And that you have all of these modern hominids like Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo sapiens, and some Homo anti-cessor over here coming out of this group over here which are all ape. So, they have the pythic anthroposis and the astralopithecines. These are all ape. And these are all human. And we find them together. Now, the out of Africa theory says this is how they spread, probably here out of the Horn of Africa. And Homo sapiens has only been around 100,000 years, so they say. And if you take the full picture, then we have these two groups of fossils over here. There's one over here in the Horn of Africa, and this one over here in South Africa. Those are the prime sites for human evolution. There's another theory which is called multi-regional hypothesis, which shows man approximately everywhere at the same time. So, regional populations of Homo erectus may have evolved into Homo sapiens while intermingling with one another. So, here's everything at the same time. So, there's really no evidence for the out of Africa theory. This is far more common, and this is their own one. Isn't it interesting that all the lines meet over there? It's roughly where the ark would have landed if there was such a thing. But let's have a look at this one. Here you have the fossils in the south, and they're talking about 200,000 years ago, but the actual evolution three and a half million years, etc. And then you had Neanderthal man over there, and old Java man, and all of these over here. And let's see what they've come up with. Well, Leakey was the first one to actually start with this road of discovery, and he puts the line somewhat like this. He says Australopithecus. Now, Australopithecus was a knight, but he said, well, maybe this had sort of features that were leading towards man. But remember, man was already there. Don't forget that, man was already there. And he says, then you go through the line, and eventually you come to Neanderthalensis and chromagnon over there, and he says they walked upright these Australopithecans because we find footprints in stone. Did you know that these footprints have been studied in great detail, and they are identical with human footprints made in mud by people walking barefoot? In fact, if you look at Australopithecan foot, which I have down there, you'll see that the toe is offset. Did you know that they actually cheated to make some of these footprints to change them, to show that the toe is offset when it wasn't? So there is no evidence that these creatures walked upright except footprints which are like human and not like a footprints at all. So if they find a fossil, it is either like all of these 100% ape or it is a variety of 100% human. There's nothing in between. A typical Australopithecus skull. Now you have three varieties of Australopithecus, Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus arabustus, Australopithecus africanos, which says basically an ape from Africa, an ape from afar, and a robust one. Now the robust one has a ridge on top of his head and the others don't. That puts him into a different category. Did you know that the male gorilla has a ridge and the female doesn't? Are they two species? The male and the female? Obviously not. So they were all just apes and if we look at the way in which the skull is put together, has there ever been anything so completely found that they could put it together? No, it's always pieced together like this one over here. This is the famous skull 1470, also pieced together with pieces missing, but no full skeleton to go with it. So you can't tell whether it walked upright or whether it didn't. You only know that this is 100% ape as far as the skull goes and the rest is pure conjecture. This is your Hanson. He's the one who found the famous Lucy and he says well she is the prime candidate. Lucy was tiny and there are scientists today in the literature which say Lucy was nothing other than a pygmy chimp because she was 100% ape. But how do they depict Lucy in the museums? This is the Museum of Natural History in London. Notice the footprints again? Lucy walking there with a child on her? Is Lucy more closely related to humans than other astrolopithecines? Notice it's just an ape. This question is still, what does it say there today in the museum? Where the greatest paleontological scientists in the world today reside? This question is what? Still unanswered. Partly because each kind of astrolopithecine has unique features that could link it with human beings. Of course they were contemporaneous with human beings. Human beings were already there so this is no evidence of evolution. These were just apes. Did they walk upright? No evidence whatsoever. Oh no but they show them gathering sticks and making things and doing all of this from what? That skeleton? That's what they've got. Now the head is 100% ape. The arm-to-leg ratio that they say is midway between a human and an ape. You see apes have a leg-to-arm ratio of about one to one. That means the leg is as long as the arm. And humans have a leg-to-arm ratio of 1 to 0.75. So the arm is only three-quarters as long as the leg. Now that is the average ratio. Now your Hansen worked this out and said the ratio here is 1 to 0.87. That's sort of halfway between apes and man. Hello? There are pieces missing there, pieces missing there, pieces missing there, pieces missing there, all over the place. How did you work that out? How did you work that out? But he says that's not the only evidence so let's forget it. By the way your Hansen is in problem, has a trouble, has a big problem especially with me. Have you seen my arm? It's very very long so I must be some intermediate hominid. Some people just have long arms. I can't help it but it's good to keep trouble at arm's length. Now he also says this hip over here tells us that she worked upright. Unfortunately not with that one because with this one she actually worked like an ape. But he says this hip must be twisted and if we twisted a little bit then she could work upright. Not with this one but if we twisted we could. And he says it must be a twisted hip. But of course there is no other hip to compare it with. Can you see? So all we have is a hip that makes her work like an ape. Now why does he say it's twisted? Well because of the knee. The knee you see is more like a human knee. That's the only piece of the fossil that is like a human. But do they tell you in the textbooks that they never found the knee with Lucy? That they found it in totally different deposits? That doesn't even belong to this fossil? No. They just added it for convenience. Now remember man and apes were contemporaneous yes or no. So what's the big deal with finding a human knee? Because in this area we find humans and astrolopithecans together. In Olde by Gorge you find evidence of human activity as well as these creatures. So what happened over here? Let's go to Stack Fontaine to see if we can find some solutions. Stack Fontaine is the group of caves in South Africa. In the vet largest runs and there these caves are and there you find some interesting fossils. This is Robert Broome. He was actually one of the first biologists of the university where I did my undergraduate study, Stellambost University. Very famous man. There he is with Jan Smuts. Great interest these gentlemen had in the origin of humans and he found the famous misplaced fossil. All right here are these caves. You go down into them. You have these beautiful stalactites and stalagmites and there you have these fossil bone chips. This was our trained guide and he's supposed to explain all these things as to what happened here in the past and all these things and how this evolution took place. And I took this man aside and I said to him, excuse me, I actually took him on tape but it's a freak on so it won't help if you won't understand him. I said do you believe that you come from all of these? No, not me. Great. And here my friend is pointing out some of these bone chips and if you want to know what my wife looks like, that's her. I see her once of you are on this picture. And here you have some bone chips over here. You would imagine that maybe, you know, these are buried in these layers down here showing great time in the past. No, not so at all. Yeah, this huge slide coming down and let's see what they say. South African cave deposits contain bones of animals collected by many different agents. Some bones are, what does it say? Washed in from the surface. Others are dropped down shafts by leopards feeding on prey which they bring up to overhanging trees. Inners bring bones to their young and dens within the cave and porcupines accumulate bones on which they ignore, albs, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So all these fossils were brought in. They're not in layers over there and most of them are washed in. And there you have all these interesting fossils that they find in these caves. Let me take you to the museum there. Here's this famous skull of the tongue child found in South Africa in 1924, but it's an astrolopithecine. And every now and then they find another piece of astrolopithecus. And Time magazine rages and National Geographic goes berserk. Ho hum, it's just another astrolopithecine, it's an ape. So they find a little piece of toe, big excitements. Here it is 2.6 million years old. Mrs. Place, there she is. She's almost like a philosopher, right? And here they found little foot, July 1997, there it is. And little foot, what was it? It was an ape foot with a toe offset. It wasn't human at all. This is nothing to get excited about. There's an ape. There it is, Dr. Ron Clark and the little foot femur, but it was just an ape. Notice how they reconstruct the fossil over here when all they found are these pieces. That's it. The rest is purely put together. And here you have parantrophils, a flat-faced ape man with a very low forehead. This is what they look like from these bone chips. Or hips, many ape men found that stack fontaine and they have all these hips. Now, they will put the hips down and they will show you how the human hip evolved, from a narrow hip to a wide hip. They'll put them down in sequence and say, "Look, here is evidence for evolution, rubbish." Women today that bear children, do they measure the hip? Do they take pictures or measure the hip width? Yes or no? Of course, they measure it. Some women have narrow hips, some have wide hips. Some have such narrow hips that they cannot give birth naturally and they have to have a cesarean section. We have a huge variety of hip widths today, but if I took all the women's hips and lined them up, I'd have from narrow to wide. It's going to do with evolution. That's variety. It becomes, it comes out of fossils, doesn't make it anything else. Here's Neanderthal man. This is how they depict Neanderthal man and these other rocks. Here is a Neanderthal grave site. Remains of Neanderthal child found buried at Teshik Shashin, Uzbekistan. The body was placed in a shallow pit. Pears of goats horn had been placed around it, a fire had been lit beside the grave. I've spoken to scientists in the East Bloc countries who tell me categorically that they think that the Neanderthal line is still around today. No big deal in many of the human races we find out. This is human, nothing other than human. There's a Neanderthal skull from a grave. They buried them with flowers. These were humans, but we are told they looked like morons. Here they are, and these strange features. Now, this particular type fossil actually was of an old man with bone diseases. And besides that, you know, in the past, perhaps people got older than today. Perhaps they did. Perhaps they lived a different lifestyle. What happens when we get old? Do we retain our useful features, or do they change? You see, the bone grows and we get greater brow ridges. So, all the people, old skulls look totally different to young skulls. So, these variations could just be simple variations in age and have nothing to do with evolution. And from a few fragments, you're going to reconstruct something like this from an old man who had rickets. Here they put a Neanderthal in a suit in a German museum, and there you have an aborigine. Now, this is one of the saddest stories in the history of mankind. Did you know that in the 1940s, now I'm going to date myself, I was born in that time. You could get a license from the British High Commissioner in Australia in the 1940s though, to hunt aborigines. Did you know that? On what grounds? On what grounds? On the grounds that they were evolutionary inferior organisms, Darwinism condemned them to death. Today, they will look like that when they have their rituals. Some of them are still living like that. Others look like that during their rituals, and during the week, they will put on their suit and go and give classes at the universities where they are professors. That's very rapid evolution, wouldn't you say? Today, we would be ashamed of what we did. If we would realize that the differences we have is variety. What would happen today, if someone saw a lady walking with a chihuahua on his chain and walked up to the chihuahua and went squash. That's an evolutionary ancient inferior organism. What would happen? A hue and cry like you cannot believe because this is a highly advanced little pet creature. That's what they would say. Or what if you did the same to a sunburner and said that's an evolutionary outcast because it's different to the others. When each of them just reflects a variety within the gene pool, it's got nothing to do with evolution at all. So perhaps the races that we have do the same thing. I'll give a whole lecture on that coming up. Don't wait. But don't think that evolution hasn't taken its toll. We find some very interesting fossils of humans. These are Graubala and Talland Man. We find them in top pits. And some of these fossils are huge. Some are 2.5 meters tall. Wow. We're things very different in the past to what they are today. We find some of these buried with gold trinkets. So obviously some of them were even sacrifices to sun deities or whatever. And if we take a look at American fossils of Indians, for example, from graves, then even magazines that want to propagate evolution say it challenges our traditional model of hunter-gatherer societies that they have such intricately woven clothing which shows some form of technology. What about the Iceman's secret? Well, he popped up and there he was. And science went crazy. New evidence, new this. And then suddenly, keep nothing. Why? Because he was so incredibly ordinary and even had mocks of operations. So suddenly he disappeared. We have fossils of mummies, for example, and not a shred of evidence that anything really dramatic has changed. When we come to the human evolution, the different races, we'll talk about that in a future lecture. Evolution comes to life. This is scientific American telling us how it happens. You'd say they find a bone fragment. Then they build up this fossil from a bone fragment and they call it forensic science. And they use the most modern techniques and then they'll put the flesh on it and then they'll put the skin on it and then they'll put the hair on it and the looks on it and you can see he looks like an idiot, right? Why? Because he's supposed to look like that. He's supposed to be some ancient creature of predating modern man. Now forensic science is a perfect science and an exact science. But you have the whole skull and you reconstruct on the whole skull, you don't have a tooth and then reconstruct the skull on the tooth and say, okay, this is what this beautiful woman looked like. Yes or no? Does it make any sense? No. Yeah they have a bone chip and they reconstruct it to look like that. Did they know he had long hair from a bone chip? Of course not. But this is the primitive notion. This is what we are led to believe on what evidence? None. Absolutely none. And these are the pictures which we are shown. So this would be Adam and Eve. This is what they would look like. Well, this is interesting. There's Eve as science says she looked like. Genesis 1 verse 27, "So God created man in his own image and the image of God created him, male and female created he/them. I asked the young people, "Help me, Atia." You know, I'm an old gizor. You know, just help me out. Which are the coolest women in the world today? And they said, "Oh, I'm a riot carry Beyonce and Avril Lavina." I said, okay, there they are. I put them on the screen for you. Each of them and they represent different races as well. And I must admit, you know, pretty nice looking women. Pretty nice looking women. So now, Genesis 1 verse 27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created him, male and female created he/them." Fascinating story. Fascinating story. Did Eve look like that? Or does this reflect a little bit of what Eve might have looked like? What do you think? The choice really is yours. Either we have a noble origin, or we come from the slime pit all the way through to modern man. That's the choice we have. Either we are sons of the most high and daughters of the most high, or Eve looked like that. I'll tell you something. If there was Eve, I would still be running. And there would be no prosperity, no prosperity either. There would be no offspring because I would never get near to Eve. That's for sure. So if this is correct and God created man in his own image and in the image he created him, then imagine a world that was perfect and a world that was covered in the most beautiful vegetation and yet these magnificent animals on there. Well, this raises a whole pile of questions. Then why doesn't it look like that today anymore? Why do we have death and carnivores and all these creatures? That's a difficult question to answer. But I'll be addressing it in our whole lecture and we'll be looking at those issues. And we must be able on the basis of the facts to decide is there evidence that Eve looked like that or is there no evidence that she looked like that? That's for you to decide. Thank you for coming tonight. Don't miss the next ones. They're going to get exciting. (upbeat music) (dramatic music)