What the World Needs Now
3 The Genesis Conflict - Bones in Stones
[ Music ] >> Tonight's lecture is titled Bones in Stones because we're going to talk about the fossil record this evening. And fossils have always picked the interest of young and old. So what are all these bones in stones? And why are those so different from what we see today? You see, science would like us to believe that everything happened millions and millions of years ago and that these creatures roamed the earth at some stage in the history and represented a totally different life form to what we have today. As we looked at in the last lecture already, we went through the geological column which nowhere exists in total and then we also mention that there were creatures in that geological column which science says reflect an evolution of life from simple to complex. That's at least how it is put in the textbooks, how it is presented at the schools and basically the theory goes that the eukaryotes, that's the unicellular organisms from the simpler ones to the ones that have a nucleus like we have, they evolved over millions of years and then from some 600 million years ago suddenly we have this tremendous record of life on earth starting with all these creatures through time until we get to the hominids in the later periods of this development. And we are told that this evolution is one that reflects simplicity to complexity. So that is how it is presented in the schools. In the lower areas they will say you have primitive creatures such as these, but in actual fact you don't have primitive creatures. Let's get this thing straight. There is no such thing as a simple organism. Every organism on this planet is highly, highly complex and what we have here is marine animals, marine sessile animals largely in the base of the column. So creatures that crawl around on the bottom, when we go a little bit higher in the column we have things which move and swim. But there is nothing simple about these organisms. They have highly, highly complex biochemical systems, anatomical systems. All is there, everything has been developed. As we go higher into the salurian you have some more creepy crawlies and some materials. Then we come to the devonian which is known as the age of the fishes. So we have many, many fish in the devonian and the record is just covered in fish. Some very interesting fish fossils, we will have a look at those in a moment. Then we go higher, we come to plant material and it is interesting that the plant material that we have represented in the Mississippian, Pennsylvania, excludes many of the flowering plants or the modern ones. So it is assumed that these came first and the others came later. Although there are some very interesting anomalies which we will deal with later. So that's more or less what science says it looked like. It was an age of ferns and psychads and interesting organisms like that. Then come the age of the larger creatures. First you went through the amphibian phage, then you come to the age of the reptiles, the triassic, the Jurassic, the Cretaceous. Suddenly we have this blanket destruction of everything and then comes the age of the mammals and the birds. And we are told that this is a record of how life evolved. But there is more than one way to get a record. For example, if I have a pond in my back garden and a bulldozer comes along with a pile of mud and covers my pond from the side in some catastrophe and at the bottom of their pond there were some plants and creepy crawlies and then some snails on the mud at the bottom and some goldfish swimming in my pond and a duck on top. And if all of these were buried, they would be buried in that sequence. So if I dug them up one day and I found the worms in the mud at the bottom and the snails a little bit higher up and the fish, my goldfish, preserved in mud a little bit higher and a duck still higher, would I then conclude that the worms gave rise to the snails, to the fish, to the duck? Not necessarily, right? Mammals and birds tend to float, so there are other ways of explaining this structure that we find in the fossil record. And we don't have to go into great details. We'll see what the general picture actually is all about. So now fossils that we find determine the age as well. For example, this is the principle of fossil correlation. If I find this particular fossil in one layer at a particular place and I find the same fossil in another area also in a layer, then I conclude that the two layers are of the same age. So how is the age of the layer determined by the fossil that is in the layer? So this layer gets its age from the fossil and this fossil gets its age from what? From the layer. That's circular reasoning. So it's as old as the layer because the fossil is as old as the layer and the layer is as old as the fossil because the fossil is as old as the layer. You get it? But there's no age. So whatever age you want to put at it, well, that's fine, whatever you want. Now, even the old textbooks say, if covered by moist sediment, weathering is prevented and for these reasons, quick burial is perhaps the most important condition favoring fossilization. Things have to be buried quickly in order not to rot away and disappear. And then also waterborne sediments are so much more widely distributed than all other agents of burial that they include the great majority of fossils. So everything seems to be buried in water and everything had to be buried rapidly. What berries are whale or a dinosaur rapidly except some major catastrophe? And everything seems to be buried in water sediments, but there was no water catastrophe, no flood. Does that make sense? It doesn't really make sense. So if you have modern textbooks, you'll see pictures like this. Dinosaurs. And then there is an eruption of some volcano. These are allosaurus and stegosaurus walking around. They get buried. And then after a while, there's some erosion that takes place. And they are exposed. And then you can find them and study them. And then this is how it happened. But this is not what we really see. What we really see is organisms washed into position by water. Now how long does it take for something to fossilize? We've already looked at that. It doesn't take very long. Remember those teddy bears that fossilize in water that is high in the minerals that are needed for the purpose? Here is a hat. This is a miner's hat. And it's in a museum in Australia. It comes out of a mine that was vacated some 30 years ago. And it's solid stone. So it turned into solid stone in a very short period of time. All right, let's have a look at this fossil record. Here are some fish fossils. And you can see here are pretty intact fish over here. And there are sometimes huge areas covered in fish. In Africa, South Africa, we have an area which we call the Echa. It's one of these Devonian periods. And there are just hordes of these fish. What is also interesting is that many of the fish that we find are intact. But many seem to be headless. When I was a student going around looking at all these palaeontological finds, I thought to myself, wow, it looks like these fish lived in the French Revolution because most of them last their heads. But what is interesting about fish is when a fish lies in water and is dead and is rotting, the first thing that happens is the ligament attaching the head rots away and the head drops off. Eventually, it puffs up and all the scales fall off. And then it deteriorates. And in a very short period of time, that fish is gone. So we don't have fossilization of these creatures today. They just disappear and dissipate in the bacteria and the scavengers and what have you. They come and that thing is gone, gone. But here something happened and many of them are perfect. That means they must have been buried instantaneously. Some of them, or lots of them, don't have heads. That means they floated in the water for a few days, not a long time. And then we're buried. We find fish like these with heavy bony scales. And when we see those, that's primitive. That's a pretty advanced feature, heavy bony scales. And if we look at modern fish like the sturgeon, that has heavy bony scales. So what do they say about the sturgeon? That's a primitive fish. That's a very old primitive fish. Why? Because it looks old and primitive. They do exactly the same with a rhino. A rhino looks kind of folded and ancient, doesn't it? And we look at it and say, well, that's a pretty ancient animal. It must have an ancient origin. But in actual fact, it's a mammal. Hello. When did the mammals appear? In recent times, even according to evolutionary theory. So we cannot have our mindset dictate data. You have to take it for what it is. Here is a modern fish with bony scales and it is not ancient. It's living today. This is the sturgeon. That's the one you get to carve off from if you're into that sort of thing. Then we find fossil beds just covered in scales. Nothing like that happens today. The scales dissolve in the sea after a while. You can go digging in the bottom of the sea and find piles of scales that could fossilize, doesn't exist. So this is catastrophism. It's much like the bark that was stripped of trees when they're rolled in the water and get buried as bark layers, which doesn't make any sense if you don't have a catastrophe. Here are some interesting features. Fish, small, large, buried together and sometimes you have fossils where a fish is actually eating another fish while it is being fossilized. So what was happening here? Obviously during this event, this fish was swimming around, took a bite and before it could say Jack Robinson, what happened? It got buried. It was gone. That's exactly what happened. This is catastrophism and this fossil here. This is a fish that is absolutely perfect. You can even see the little ripple marks around it. This fish was literally buried alive instantly because the preservation is perfect. The oxygen was cut off instantly. Science will tell us that we don't have a complete record of the fossil record because soft bodies creatures don't fossilize readily. That's not true. There are millions of fossils of soft-bodied creatures. Here's one. This is a jellyfish. You can see it's perfectly preserved. We have all kinds of creatures, soft-bodied and non-soft-bodied, perfectly preserved in the fossil record. There is no reason to say that they don't occur in the fossil record because they would not fossilize readily. In the book Evolution of Life, we read time and again, wind, water and ice have cut and destroyed rocks that have been elevated to form continents. That there is a fossil record at all seems rather remarkable. This is a fascinating point. Think about this. Here you have all the geological layers and they contain all these fossils. Let's take a mountain range, for example, that's eroding quickly. And you erode it away and you're removing it. What are you removing? A record of time with all the fossils in it. And so we say, for example, the Himalayas, they are eroding away at a thousand meters or at least two meters every thousand years. That's the exact figure that they give. About two meters every thousand years. So that's just over two yards, gone. Now what's very interesting is if that is so, if you're rubbing it out, why is the mountain still there? Well, science gives the answer and says, the mountain is still there because it is being uplifted. We call that erogenous, uplift of the mountain. Now that's fine. That's a pretty good theory and the mountain actually is still rising. You can measure the rate of rise and that more or less keeps up with the rate of eradication at the top. But now there's a problem. If this process has been going on for millions of years, rubbing out the top and still having the height because you're lifting it up from the bottom, can you still still have the record of the history of the world in the top? Yes or no? You cannot have your cake and eat it. You cannot rub it out and say it's eroded away, but it's still there because we've lifted it up. Then you should have only the stuff right at the bottom that is still there. But no, we have the whole record there, so that cannot be. So somewhere there's a flaw in the story. Somehow there's a problem. How can we still have a fossil record when it's been eradicated over and over again by a process called erosion, over millions and millions of years? And so some scientists have this tongue-in-cheek statement. "Historical geology is a record of events, most of which never took place in time, none of which never existed." Well, let's have a look what science has to say. Well, Time Magazine picked up from the scientists and splashed it all over the world so that the youth and everybody should become acquainted, evolving at supersonic speed. You see, when I was a graduate student at the university, I was taught Darwinism. Darwinism has a logic about it, but Darwinism requires what we call gradualism. Gradual change over time from one form to another. That's gradualism, but if you look at the fossil record, you don't see gradualism. Gradualism means that you should be able to pick up small differences over time and then have a picture from primitive to advanced in the fossil record. Isn't that logical? That's what you would expect, but you don't find it in the fossil record. Indeed, what you find is that the creatures are there, so now you have a problem. So then the neodarvinists come along, people like Stephen Jay Gould and all of those that worked at Harvard, and they said, "No, what happened is the following? We had long periods of stability and then rapid change." And that's why we don't see any of these links between them. So evolving at supersonic speed, how quickly did things evolve? When life exploded, the big bang of animal evolution. This is now the scientific paper, and it was published in the journal Scientific American, a summary of the events as we know them today. Now, let's have a look who published this. The person here is Jeffrey Levinton, Professor and Chair of the Department of Ecology and Evolution at State University of New York, Stony Brook, and so he is a person who is well qualified to tell us what the state of affairs is today. So let's ask scientists themselves what the status quo is. He writes, "The Cambrian explosion, that's that lowest layer where life suddenly appears, was characterized by the sudden and roughly simultaneous appearance of many diverse animal forms almost 600 million years ago. No other period in the history of animal life can match this," note the words, "remarkable burst of evolutionary creativity." So interesting. And then he talks about the creatures that were present. It is evidence that there was obtained from sequencing, 18s ribosomal RNA, that suggests that various species and many filer, now it's a filer, that's a huge category of animal. For example, all the snails, all the slugs, all the marine mollusks, all the squids and the octopuses and all of that constitutes one filum. And then you have the arthropods, all the jointed legged ones, all the crabs, all the insects, every little crayfish, all of those that walk around, that's another filum. So these are huge categories of animals. And they're suggesting that the many filer appeared almost simultaneously. That means, boom, they were there. Stephen J. Gould writes, "Fast turns out to be much faster than anyone ever thought." This is an article in the journal Nature in the paleontology section. That's the best journal so the world believes in the world. The article of it, not above it, says, older textbooks proclaim that our filum, now let me put this into perspective, the group that we as humans belong to is supposed to be the pinnacle of evolution. Where does that fit in? Right at the end of the process, isn't that right? We should appear lost this filum. So older textbooks proclaim that our filum, the kodata, did not appear until the Odevicium period and that this later evolution must imply advanced status. But the burger shell contains a kordate. What does that mean? Well, they identified a kordate from the Changyang fauna and now seals the fate of this misguided effort in asserting specialness for our ancestry. Kordates arose in the Cambrian explosion. Oops, what does that mean? This means that every filum, every group, including the one that we belong to was there from the beginning. This is a major problem. During the past decade, however, the discovery and development of another fauna of marvellously preserved soft bodied Cambrian organisms in China has proven that no full diversity was reached within the explosion itself. That means everything, every life form, kind, that exists today was there from when? From when? From the beginning. Now, I'm not making this up. These are the top scientists in the field in the world. Everything was there from the beginning. In my own life, I started off with my thinking as a gradualist. That's the only logical alternative. Darwinism is the only logical alternative. Now, please don't confuse logic with correctness. Something can be perfectly logical, but it can be perfectly wrong at the same time. So, Darwinism is a logical alternative in science. We'll look at Darwinism and see what the flaws in Darwinism are, but everything appearing at the same time, that cannot be. So, you had to change. So, we became what was called punctuated equilibrianists. Sounds very nice. That means equilibrium, long periods of nothing, and then punctuated, rapid change, but, you know, it's not too far a step to take one step further and to say if everything was there from the beginning, then it could also be what? Creation, right? Doesn't that make sense? Could also be creation. Now, is this something totally new? No. He writes Charles Darwin faced this challenge to his gradualistic preference. Things changed solely over time with characteristic honesty, writing in the first edition of Origin of Species, Strange that it disappears later. The case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertain. So, they've known this from the beginning. So, is there such a thing as an evolutionary record which shows things developing from simple to complex? Answer is no. What we have is fully complex organisms there at the same time. Now, when they put in evolutionary trees like this, actually you don't have evolutionary trees. You have what we call evolutionary lawns. Now, a tree has a trunk. That means it starts with one, and then it goes up and then it branches out into all the various branches. So, everything started simple, developed, and then all the different things started developing. That's the tree of life. All these different creatures all over the place, starting from one organism and becoming more and more and more. That's what science would like to teach. But unfortunately, it didn't happen like that. What we have is a lawn. All the blades, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, there at the same time. So, the frogs look like this today. The frogs have always looked like that right down into the record, and the fish have looked like that, and the sharks have looked like that, and whatever else, the lampreys, and all of these have looked like that, and some of them are not around anymore. But we have similar ones living today, and so they link them all together, suggesting that they come from a common ancestor. But this bottom piece over here of linking them together is what? Is conjecture. Where does it come from? It comes from the mind. It doesn't come from the fossils. That's very important that we realize that. So, if we look at the reptiles, the turtles, for example, you never find a half-form turtle, or a quarter turtle, or a third turtle, or a piece of something developing into a turtle. When a turtle appears in the fossil record, it's a what? It's a turtle, finished. If the lizards appear, they are lizards, snakes or snakes, etc., etc., all the way through, and the linkages are conjecture. Let's have a look at some of the criteria. Evolutionary processes require, number one, advancement from simple to complex. That would be logical, right? That's what evolution requires. Number two, evolution requires development from small to large. That's called the law of Carol. Carol was a scientist who said, "Everything had to start from small and developed to large. There is no other way." That's logical. Think about it. You don't start with a rhinoceros and end with an amoeba. You start with an amoeba and you develop all the way up to the rhinoceros. That would be logical. Is that correct? So, that's a perfectly logical assumption that you would make if evolution was correct. And also, if life started somehow fortuitously, somewhere on the planet, suddenly it was there, then there would have only been one. And eventually, they could have become more and more and more and more and more. If the theory is correct, so we start with a low diversity to high diversity. That's logical. That's what you'd expect. But what do we have? Well, we don't have that at all. We have irreducible complexity. Suddenly, they're there. Boom. And some of the features in what we have cannot be simplified. They will not work if they are simplified. So, they have to be complete. Everything has to be there. Boom. Some of the organelles and structures in living organisms are so complicated and need so many building blocks and parts that if they're not complete, they wouldn't work. So, boom. Everything has to be there at the same time. So, we don't have advancement from simple to complex. Everything was always complex. Do we have small to large? No. If we go into the past history, everything was bigger and larger and more magnificent than it is today. Today, we have a fraction of what used to exist in terms of size and in terms of diversity. We have reversed diversity. We would expect low to high, but we find far more creatures in the past than exist today. In fact, we only have a fraction left of what used to live. So, we find exactly the opposite to what is to be expected. Well, that's a problem. It's cooled in these article, "Return to Help for Monsters in Natural History." Now, these are the top scientists. Stephen Jay Gould is dead now, but still, his work lives. The family trees that adorn our textbooks are based on inference. They come out of the mind, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils. So, Darwin's theory of this is what we would expect is logical, if it were true, but we don't find that. We find exactly the opposite and the family trees are based on inference. So, when you go into the fossil record and you look at the evolution of the horse, this is how it's depicted. So, you go from this tiny little creature which used to be called eohippus, or it used to be called high recotherium, and then they changed it to eohippus, develops all the way through to the modern horse. And this strange little one down here, high recotherium is depicted like that, but its name was high recotherium because it looked like a high recs, a rock high recs. In fact, it was nothing other than a type of rock high recs. Then if we go to the other creatures all the way up and to the horses, they arrange the horses from small to large. That's logical, but is it necessarily right? If I gave you a pile of dog skulls, imagine this now in your mind, I gave you a pile of dog skulls, every conceivable dog type on the world, and I said, there it is, and you've never seen dogs before, and I say, design for me an evolutionary tree, what would you do? What would you do? You would arrange them from what? From small to large, so the chihuahua would be right at the bottom. There he is. And then how would you develop your tree? What would you do? Well, you would put all the creatures that had sort of flat, stocky, bulls, flat faces. You'd put them on the one branch, isn't that right? So you would have your bulldog and your pug and all of those on the one side and the boxer arranged on the one side. And in the middle you'd have the sort of in-between sturdy ones, and on the right what would you have? Something like the lean sort of slim long machines, the whippets and the afghans with their long snoots, and you'd have a beautiful tree, and it would be perfectly logical. Would it be right? No, it would be absolutely wrong. Why? Because they didn't come out of the chihuahua in the first place. In fact, they came out of the wolf breeds and the evolution is non-existent. This is the variety that is found within the gene pool from the smallest to the largest, so it's not. Something that you would think reflects evolution at all. It comes out of the mind. So the same over here. These creatures, were they buried in the fossil record in the sequence from small to large, yes or no? The answer is no. They were all there at the same time. They were contemporary, and you're giving a pile of bones to a scientist, and he in the laboratory where he sits designs the tree. It's based on inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils. That's the fact of the matter. So today, do we have tiny horses? Yes, that's the smallest horse. Look how small it is relative to that hand, and that's the largest horse. That's the variation in the horse breed today. This has nothing to do with evolution. Nothing to do with evolution. Is that ancient horse, and there's a modern horse? No, they both live at the same time. You have the entire range over there. These horses are magnificent creatures, but they are totally different to other horses. These are the very special breed of horses that you find on Iceland alone. They have got features which are totally different from modern horses, but we know that these horses are derived from normal horses that the Vikings took to Iceland 1,200 years ago. So these changes that we see have to be accounted for, but this is nothing other than a normal horse. So then let's go to the dinosaurs and all these interesting creatures. Well, here was an article in Time magazine about dinosaurs. Surprise, just about everything you believe is wrong. Well, that's nothing new. What did they look like? What were they? Did they give rise to birds as is being told in the world today? Here's a sort of artist's impression of the Mesozoic period with all these creatures running around. Did they die in hot water? How did they die? Why did they only exist here in the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous? Why are they gone now? This is a typical tree of the dinosaur evolution starting with the amphibians and then how they all evolved and there are all the modern ones sitting on top of the tree. Is this true or is this conjecture? What is it? It's inference, conjecture, but it's not based on the fossil. So how did they get that? They had all the creatures. They're all in these layers. They take them and then they put them together. Is there anything leading up to a stegiosaur or any one of these, a brontosaurus or a pteranosaurus rex or a triceratops over there? Is there anything leading up to it? Yes or no? No? When they're there, they're there. That's it. That's what you got. Everything's finished and ready. See, in your country, the great formations or the Morrison formation where you have many, many dinosaurs, but you have a selection. You have largely one allosaurus. Where's the rest? And he was supposedly a carnivore. What did he eat? Why aren't those fossilized as well? Here are strange assemblies of fossils and then if you look at them, these creatures are orientated in the direction of stream flow. There's an allosaurus for you. Or this one over here, the terrible, terra-saurus rex. Now what happened to him? Was he a vicious, vicious carnivore? What did Jurassic Park do with this creature? Everybody was running around screaming in fear. Is that correct? Because this vicious carnivore was going to destroy everything in its path. Why is it a vicious carnivore? Because of its teeth, right? Now if you look at this creature, then you have to remember a few things. This was a giant animal working on two legs with tiny little hands in the front. If it had to catch something, with what would it have to catch it? With its front little paws and it would have to bend down and try and catch it with its mouth while this creature was trying to run away. Now there's a law in science which determines what can be a carnivore and what cannot be a carnivore. You see, an elephant would make a very poor carnivore. Why? Because it is too huge, it is too bulky, it has too much momentum when it is running. Can you imagine an elephant trying to catch a gazelle? And the gazelle is going, gee, gee, gee, gee, gee. The elephant is going, gee, gee, gee, gee, gee, gee, gee. And the gazelle goes, gee, gee. And the elephant goes, gee, another five miles makes a new turn and tries to come back. Forget it, there will be useless as carnivores. So what do they do? They eat plants. I could still envision an elephant being a scavenger maybe. But what do you get enough to eat? It would be a catastrophic life if even a fox becomes as thin as a wreck from trying to find enough food. Isn't that right? So large animals like these just by sheer body mass would be relatively useless carnivores. And then those teeth, those teeth are in very shallow grooves. So they are good for crushing, like shredding machines, crushes. But holding on and ripping out, well, good enough with our teeth in there, it would not be very effective. So were these creatures really what we make them out to be? Fresh T-Rex bones. This is in the journal Science. It was like looking at a slice of modern bone, but of course I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician, the bones after all are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long? You see, we found bones with blood cells still in them intact. Could they be millions of years old? Yes or no? These are questions which boggle the mind. Maybe these creatures didn't live so long ago, and maybe these creatures were not what science would have us believe them to be. If you go to a museum of natural history, any one of them, this is what you will see, dinosaurs running around and what are they all doing? They're all ripping each other apart, isn't they right? They're all ripping each other apart, bleeding and blood gushing, one screeching and running while the other one is taking a bite out of the side. That's what you see out there. Here you see another one. These come from the British Museum of Natural History, this one being attacked and you have much blood and gore and ripping, and the displays that you have, you have the blood around the face and the blood around the feet and all of these things, and these things are all depicted as highly vicious. Do we have creatures today that have short little arms in the front and big legs at the back? Here we have kangaroos, they're great carnivores. Have you seen them running around killing everything? I'm glad all over the place. No you don't. The anatomy is just not suitable for that. So what is the story of here? Is it really like that? You had tiny little dinosaurs like this one. Some dinosaurs were just the size of a chicken, not very big. Did you know that reptiles continue to grow and they get very, very, very, very, very, very old? If you take tortoises, for example, if you have a tortoise that's a few days old, how big is it? It's about that big. It's about that big. And if you come back in 300 years, if you survive that long, how big would it be? It would be about that big, right? And so on the Galapagos Island, you have huge tortoises. And what if they, if you came around a thousand years later, how big would it be? Oh, a pretty big thing, right? And we have some very amazing creatures today. Here is one of them in display in the Museum of Natural History in London. You can see by the scale of things. I mean, these things were huge. This creature was probably a swamp creature walking in swamps and feeding of the swamps. And here is a triceratops. Obviously a plant feeder. Look at its mouth. It's exactly like any creature that would eat plants. Tortoises have mouths like that. So this was a plant creature. So it had these vicious horns on the top bird. Why? Well, you see, it had to protect itself against what? Against all these vicious carnivores. Oh, it had this huge defense mechanism to do its job. That's what science is teaching our young people today. That's the image that we have with us. Hello? What's that? That's a chameleon. And it has three horns on the top. That's some modern triceratops. That's a small one. Some chameleons get pretty big like this. Some are very small. We have all kinds of varieties. And these horns over here are to protect it against all the vicious carnivores all around. True or false? Very false. What are those horns for? Those horns are there to look sexy. Exactly. When a female looks at those horns, her knees just begin to wobble. And that's what happens. Now, this is a very common thing in nature. If you take reindeer, for example, what do reindeer look like in the breeding season? What does the male look like? He has these huge antlers. He is so impressive, right? And the bigger they are, the cockier he is, right? And then the breeding season come in the males. They test their horns and the females watch and are very impressed. And the guy with the biggest antlers, you know, like the youth today with the best hairstyles, they get the ladies. That's the way it works. Everything works like that. What happens after the breeding season to a reindeer's antlers? They fall off. Now, what if they were really there to keep all the vicious carnivores away? He would be in big trouble for most of the year, right? Nothing to protect himself. This is a mindset that is being placed in the minds of men that does not have a basis in reality. And these creatures were probably no different to the lizards and the creatures that we have today, just bigger. Everything was bigger. We find dinosaur eggs, yes, and then we have museum depicting them in their little nest, breeding out, pretending that everything is very normal and we can find the eggs, yes. But how do we find these eggs in the fossil record? They are all washed into great washes. They have all been buried in catastrophic flood deposits. There is no such thing out there as a natural setting that would pretend to be anything like it is today. Dinosaur footprints all over the place. If you look at the way in which the impression was made, then it appears that in the past the animals all walked uphill because most of the footprints seem to go upgrade. You can't look at the topography today. You have to look at what it was like because they could have been uplift and down lift. So when these animals made the impressions, they were making impressions in mud and they all appear to be running uphill. Why would animals always run uphill? What makes animals go uphill? Maybe rising flood waters? Is that a possibility? So there are over 100 published theories about the extinction of the dinosaurs raining from the fascinating to the absurd. Do any of them explain the death of the dinosaurs? What are the facts? Why so many theories to explain something that is perfectly obvious? All of them that we find are buried in huge floodplains washed into position even orientated by flood waters. Any eggs that they are are washed into position, but none of them died in a flood. Does that make any sense? Does it make any sense to me? Then we come to the birds. But the birds, that's a topic on its own. So we'll leave that for the next session. All right, did dinosaurs give rise to birds? That's a very interesting question. Science says, yes, that is at least what we are taught. That's what the kids are taught. Oh yes, there's the overiraptors and the Velico raptors and all these strange looking creatures all over the place. And they're depicted as taking care of their little eggs. And we have fossils where there are feathers and there was a transition from the dinosaurs to the birds. Archaeopteryx, a very famous vessel fossil, is now generally accepted that Archaeopteryx was a bird with fully formed flying feathers and a wishbone. Here is the prime candidate today for the transition. This is sinus aeropterics and there is the fossil. And if you look carefully, you'll see these little things over here, which seem to be feather impressions, although they're not very clear as feather impressions at all. And we'll see what the top scientists in the field have to say. These are all publications in journals like The Journal of Science, which is, of course, the equivalent of nature, so great journals. New research shows that birds lack the embryonic thumb that dinosaurs had, suggesting that it is almost impossible for the species to be closely related. Here's another statement, a team led by bird expert, Alan Fuducher, chairman of the biology of the University of North Carolina, studied bird embryos under microscope and published their studies in the journal Science, a team led by John Rubin, a respiratory physiologist at Oregon State, also analyzed the outlines of sinus aeropterics, internal organs, its bellow-like lungs, could not have evolved into the high-performing lungs of modern birds. You see, it's more than just feathers. Rubin and ancient bird expert Larry Martin believe that the so-called feather traces are actually frayed collagen fibers beneath the skin. So maybe they're not feathers at all. Feather expert Alan Brash, University of Connective, stores points out that they lack the organization found in modern feathers. So these aren't feathers at all, is that what they're saying? Well, if we look at lungs, for example, that first story, mammals have lungs like these, where the air goes into a little sack, like a balloon, and you breathe in, balloon fills up, you breathe out, balloon empties out. And that's how you fool your lung. So every time you fool your lung, you mix the air from the outside with the air already in the lung, and there is less oxygen than when that mixing didn't take place. So now, if you go climbing, when you get to a certain height, you become breathless. Why? Well, the air gets thinner, there's less oxygen, and you're battling, and you're mixing. So if you go to the top of Mount Everest, what do you have to take with you to survive? Oxygen bottle. You have to take an oxygen bottle, and then you stand up there with your oxygen bottle and try and survive. And while you're standing and looking at the view, you're here. And what flies overhead? A bunch of geese. Anything one have they got that I haven't got? How come they can be up there and I can't be up there? Well, you see, birds have different lungs. They don't have these air sacs where there is a mixing of the air, like in our case, birds have a bunch of sacs before the lungs, and a bunch of sacs after the lungs, and the air passes straight through in little tubes. So the anatomy and the physiology is totally different in a bird lung to what it is in a reptile lung or a mammalian lung. So the one could never give rise to the other, and also feathers are highly complex structures that could never develop incrementally to be efficient. They would have to be there, fully formed or be useless for flying, or one of the two. So here you have huge problems in the physiology. Here are some more statements. Storss Olsen is creator of birds at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institute, and he wrote a response to a National Geographic article which just plasters it across the world that it's a fact. Birds came from dinosaurs. Isn't it what this expert has to say to them? The feathered dinosaur pictures are simply imaginary and have no place outside of science fiction. Are you ever told this at the school level? Yes or no? No. Nobody hears this. You only hear one-sided propaganda. In fact, that is unfair science because it's based on a lie. The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a Carter of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at nature and national geographic. So there seems to be an agenda in the scientific world who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytors of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grandest scientific hoaxes of our age, the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. There's no such thing, and yet our children are being subjected to it every single day. He writes here, Alan Felucia chairman of the biology department at the University of North Carolina. He writes, "It's biophysically impossible to evolve flight from such large bipedes with foreshortened forlums and heavy balancing tails exactly the wrong anatomy for flights. The theropod dinosaur origin of birds in my opinion will be the greatest embarrassment of the paleontology of the 20th century. Do you think science will heat it? I doubt it. They will preach it and teach it because that is the only solution they have. Because where did the birds come from if they didn't come from something? Because God is not going to be acknowledged ever. Creation is not going to be acknowledged. Complexity had to fall from the sky. Well, what are these? These are the famous Ika stones from Peru. What is that? These are stones drawn on by ancient Indian cultures. And what do we have there? That's a triceratopsie, whatever I saw one. There you can see it perfectly clearly. These are flying reptiles. These are pterodactyls. There is no doubt about that. And they have a person flying on them. Very interesting. And they have all these creatures on the Ika stones. Is it possible that man and these creatures live contemporaneously? Where do all the legends come from dragons and fighting this? Do you know that ancient writers who are not even writing about science but poets or just historians writing quite generally just in passing mention that these creatures, which they call dragons, live in Africa or in the jungles here, there and everywhere. There are many, many, many occasions where there are records of such sightings. And then you have these strange things over here. I don't believe that the lizards in the past were any different to the lizards that we have today. If you take this modern lizard that lives today, the basilisk that's spread across jungle streams and you look at this creature, doesn't he look like something from science fiction? Isn't it cute? I think he's absolutely delightful. But imagine the paleontologist got hold of this fossil. What would he do that? It would be the most vicious looking creature under the sun. When actually it's a cute little thing that sits there and is therefore the amusement of the eye. George Gaylord Simpson, one of the doyons of evolution says, it has been suggested that all animals are now specialized and that the generalized forms on which major evolutionary development depend are absent. In fact, all animals have always been more or less specialized and are really generalized. Living form is merely a myth or an abstraction. What does that mean in simple language? He says there's no such thing as a simple animal that became complicated. It's a myth. When we look at the fossil record, everything is complicated. At the same time, what do we have in the world today? Scientists agree. World faces mass extinction. Quarter of the mammals face extinction. Only 10% of the big ocean fish remain. That's what the world is knowing. This is a fact. So everything is disappearing, which explains why everything was more in the past than it is today. Doesn't that make sense? If we are slowly, slowly eradicating things by extinction, sooner or later we'll have what? Nothing left. Natural selection is doing a great job of removing everything from the planet. So if we look into the past, it was a far greater world than we have today. And science is distorting the picture. It's not what it seems to them. These creatures were just around. So young folks, if the world were ever restored to what it was, what in the light it would be? How many creatures there would be? If you look at the fossil record, we had strange creatures in the past that don't live today. But what is an Ammonite? An Ammonite is a highly, highly complex squid-like creature that lived in a shell and swam through the sea just like modern squids without their shells. So there you have these creatures. They're complex. There's nothing simple about them. These are the trilobites depicted as ancient and the first organisms to evolve, which is rubbish because we saw that everything was there at the same time. And what are they? The arthropods, highly complex. They don't live today, but there's nothing simple about them at all. They tunneled, they had all the equipment that they needed. This is nautilus, ancient so-called living fossils. That's the living form. That's the fossil. They were identical. Nothing has changed. If we look at the marine organisms and you look at the echinoderms like the sea stars and the brittle stars and all of these creatures, there's the fossil, there's the living forms. Nothing has changed. Nothing. When they appear, they're like that, and today they are like that. These are some of the fossil forms that we can see. Everything is identical to what it is today. Nothing has changed. So where is the story of simple to complex? It doesn't exist. It's either there or it's not there. Look at these, crinoids. These are sea lilies, highly complex, exactly in the past, as they are today. Here are shells in the fossil record, living shells. There's a fossil of a turtle, there's a living one. No change. No change whatsoever. Fossils, living creatures, identical, horseshoe crabs, as they were, supposedly millions of years ago, today unchanged. Lingular. Millions of years ago, unchanged. Seeler camps. This is the fish that was discovered in Africa for the first time by Smith, and he said, "Wow, this is a living fossil. This is the creature that gave rise to the land animals." And this is what they looked like, and because the lobes of the feet are like that, they could walk. We have many fish today that can do that besides this. All the rockfish have like little walking legs to move around on the rocks, but they don't come out and to land. Some can even hop. Isn't this fascinating? Look at the size of this shark. That's a fossil, and that's a modern shark. Nothing like it exists today. This is humongous, and that's a tooth of one of these fossils. It's enormous. There is no such thing that exists today. The frightening great white is fiddle sticks compared to that guy. Really, fiddle sticks. And here is chuatarra. That's the famous swenodon from New Zealand. Exactly like he is today, so he is in the fossil record. These creatures over here like these giant galapegos turtles, tortoises, exactly in the fossil record like they are today. Now, imagine these creatures, these wonderful iguanas. Give them a thousand years to grow. How big would they be? Wow, you'd probably fool the room with them. That would be scary, or would it? What do these creatures eat? Vicious dinosaurs? Well, if a scientist dug them up, that's what he would say. They would depict them in the museums full of blood, right? What do they eat? Seaweed, that's what they eat. That's what they eat. Nobody would ever guess. That's what they eat. Or the galapegos land iguana. Yes, some of them eat plants, some of them eat meat. We will look at that in another lecture. Gila monsters, armadillos, opossums, crocodiles, exactly like they look today. That's what they look like in the past. No change. None whatsoever. And we think crocodiles are big. Do you know what? Crocodiles that live today are toys compared to what existed in the past. Do you want to see the difference? I'll show you the difference. Look at these huge creatures like armadillos. There is a fossil crocodile, and there is a fully grown modern crocodile. No difference in the anatomy. So there's no evolution here. There's only one big difference, and that is what? This guy is just enormous. He is so huge, you cannot even imagine. If you came up across this crocodile, you would know that you had seen a crocodile. It is scary. Now why is it so big? Why is it so big? Is that evolution? What does evolution teach? You go from what to what? Small to large. But that's all we have. We go from giant to dinky toy. I'm aging myself by using dinky toy. They don't exist anymore. Legal toy. All right, there we go. So what has happened? Why is this creature so large? Maybe the circumstances in the past were ideal. There was so much food around, everything was perfect, temperatures were perfect, and they had a long time to grow without anybody wiping them off the face of the earth, and then they were huge, huge. That's not evolution. We've got devolution. We've gone downhill. Let's have a look at the insect world. This insect is a fossil, and it has a straight wing. So science says primitive. Primitive. Why primitive? Because the wing, they say, is a modified scale. Big problem. Big problem. Because a scale and a wing doesn't develop from the same anatomical layers. Big problem. You cannot have the one developing out of the other. But besides that, they have to get the wing somewhere, so it's a modified scale. Now, this creature cannot fold its wings. Obviously, if you could fold your wing nicely and bury it under or hide it under recovering, that would be an advanced feature, right? So this must be primitive. Yeah, just think of the mindset. So what is this? Straight out wing. Cannot fold it, bend it, bury it, hide it. Primitive or advanced? Primitive. Is it? No. They all occur at exactly the same time. So again, it just comes out of the mind of the scientist. Or this was perfectly formed, but the wings are straight. Primitive? No. Why should it be? Or this one? There's the fossil. There's the modern one. If you look at this creature over here, you would say, well, that's primitive because it doesn't have a folded wing. Did you know that scientists use the dragonfly to develop the helicopter? And the helicopter cannot do a fraction of what that creature can do. This creature can go, whatever it wants to do. It's magnificent. The design is absolutely astounding. We cannot even copy it. It's so perfect. But it's primitive. Why? Because the wings are straight. And if you can fold your wings like this one, like a beetle wing, that's advanced, then why do the beetles and the dragonflies occur in the fossil record at the same time? Or what is about this problem? Why do we find bees nests in the fossil record long before there are flowering plants? What did they eat? Wait for 50,000 million years to get something to eat? I think there's a problem there. Here's a praying mantis and there's a fossil and change. Nothing has changed. Here you have an eye of an insect. One of the most intricate structures known in the world today. The eye, of course, works totally different to ours. Our eye already is a nightmare to evolutionists, but this eye is even more of a nightmare because it's made up of perfectly shaped little mirrors and each of them has to be absolutely perfect to work. You cannot get this to improve over time and there are hundreds of these reflecting the light absolutely perfectly. In fact, NASA used this eye to design the mirrors in the reflecting telescopes that they use in space. They use this as a model. It's absolutely perfect. How do it come into being just like that? Because there's no incremental way in which it will work. It's either there or it's not. And do we have any evidence in the fossil record that there has been an evolution of the eye? No. Here is probably the most ancient insect that you can look at and there's the eye. This is an amber. This is a fossil. Perfect. Perfect. No change. Here's another insect in amber. There unchanged. Here's a cricket in amber. There is no evidence out there for any change. There's an ant. Now wonder this ant is saying to this ant. I can't believe it Fred. 60 million years since I've seen you and you haven't changed the bits. So is it true what science is telling us that we evolved from simple to complex? Is it true? No. The scientists themselves say everything from the beginning has been complex. There is no simple to complex. It doesn't exist. Is it true that we went from small to large? No. We went from large to small. So did we go uphill or did we go downhill? We went downhill. Is it true that we went from low diversity to high diversity? No. Extinction is removing more and more and more and more from the planet and scientists out there in the world are screaming and saying if we don't stop this we'll have nothing left. We went from high diversity to low diversity. Is it true that the animals appear gradually over time or do they appear suddenly? What do the scientific evidence say that we discussed over here? It appeared suddenly at the same time. Now you think about these things. I'm not making this up. I used to be an evolutionist. I used to believe in evolution. In fact, I hated God. I wanted nothing to do with God and I had no option but to be an evolutionist because I left God out of the equation. I had no option. And so I wasn't being a hypocrite. I just was looking for a solution and that was the only option available. Even as an evolutionist, I had to change from gradualism to equilibriumism. Punctuated equilibriumism. Why? Because the fossil record didn't tell me what it should be telling me. It just didn't do it. It cannot do it as you saw from the scientific quotes themselves. I had to change. So what's the big deal? If everything was there from the beginning, there's no difference between that and creation except that you've left out what? God. That's it. Has the only thing that I've left out? God. They're calling it sudden burst of evolutionary creativity and they've just left out God out of the equation. That's it. So is there a God who is there not a God? Well, you decide. This is the vavicia. The vicias are plants that just don't die. They just grow and grow and grow until they are very, very, very old. So we have giant vavicias in Namibia, in the deserts and they tell us something about how long things have been around. If you go to the oldest trees in the world, the bristle cone pine is famous for it. The oldest ones around how old? Well, the oldest vavicia around is between 4 and 5,000 years old. The oldest bristle cone pine, how old is that? Between 4 and 5,000 years. Some years ago, they said, oh, 6,000. But then they realized that they were not dealing accurately with the ring structures. And so today, everybody agrees. 4 to 5,000 years. That's it. Well, if you go to the Redwood National State Park, what do you find? Giant trees, huge ones. And these are first generation forests. You see, this tree is amazing because its bark is fireproof. So even if a fire sweeps through the forest, the trees survive. As a first generation forest, so there's nothing that was there before, how old are the oldest ones on the planet? Between 4 and 5,000 years. If you look at the river systems in the world, you have a Mississippi river over here. It comes down and it deposits whatever it deposits in the Gulf of Mexico. And there is no subduction there. The mud is not being taken away. It's all nicely enclosed. So whatever the Mississippi has brought down is where? In the Gulf of Mexico. The same with the Nile. Whatever the Nile has brought down, where is it? In the Mediterranean. And so if you look at the mouth of the Nile, you'll have a huge delta where all the salt that has come down over the eons has been deposited. Now, they know exactly how much these rivers actually bring down because people build dams in rivers and a dam will eventually fill up with salt and then it's no longer a dam. It gets useless. So they have to work out whether it's economically feasible to build a dam like that. And the way they do that is they put nets and devices into the water to measure how much material comes down per year and they do this over a number of years to determine how long would it take before the dam is useless. That makes sense, doesn't it? And so they did that with a Nile and then it just takes a satellite picture and you determine how much has this Nile brought down in its entire lifetime. And you know what? There is no river that's older than between 4 and 5,000 years. Doesn't exist. There is no plant that is older than between 4 and 5,000 years. And you will say to me, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, we have archaeological evidence. We have evidence from the nations, from China that everything has been around for much longer than that." Yeah, when I was a kid they taught that. When we did Egyptology what did they say? Egypt was around for how many thousands of years BC and then as the evidence piled up what has happened to those dates? What has happened to them? What has happened to the dates in China? What's happened to the dates in Egypt? What's happened to the dates in Mesopotamia? What happened to them? They got shorter and shorter and shorter and shorter and now if somebody dares say 3,000 BC, by the way that's just 5,000 years, they will put a plus minus in front of it. Why? Because they know that in a couple of weeks time the time will come down. Why? You see in the past they used to put the kings all sequential. Let's say that one ran here, next one day, next one day, next one day, next one day, next one day, next one day and that long list of kings and a long time. Because they knew this king ran for so many years, that one for so many years, a long time. And then one day they discovered, oops, yeah it was father and son ruining at the same time. Well father and three sons ruling at the same time and the time went new and so eventually we're down to a very interesting scenario. Take the history of Europe. Man, if we have been around for millions of years, why can we only trace the history of Europe to a few decades, centuries, perhaps a millennia or two BC? Nothing there before. England, there was nothing on that island, 2000 BC, nothing happening. So really we're dealing with very interesting phenomena. And these trees, yes they're huge, you can drive a car through them, but the bottom line is everything appeared at the same time, everything was fully formed, there is no evidence of change from one form to another. There is top level scientific evidence that one form did not give rise to another as they teach in our schools every single day. And I believe that these scientists are dealing with one basic problem. And that is a denial of divinity. That's it. That was my problem. Denial of divinity. It has nothing to do with science. Science has moved into the realms of faith. And you can choose for yourself whom you want to believe. That choice is yours, but you don't have to be exposed to lies in order to make a theory fit. Thank you. [MUSIC PLAYING]