Views: 0<\/p>
[Note: <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Brief Articles 2\u00a0<\/b>page.]<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If evolution really did occur, there must be proofs of it in our natural world. The fossil record is claimed as the \u201cmost direct line of proof,\u201d and yet, upon examination, it results only in embarrassment for the evolutionist. However, the substantially complete records of fossils from simplest forms in the lowest layers of the earth\u2019s crust to gradually more complex organisms as one works nearer the earth\u2019s surface, is not what is found at all. The fossil record simply does not establish or support the evolutionary cause. Charles Darwin, the \u201cfather of evolution,\u201d readily admitted this in his Origin of the Species<\/em>:<\/span><\/p>\n Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Strangely enough, the evolutionist uses this admittedly \u201cimperfect record\u201d as one of his most important \u201cproofs\u201d of his theory. The truth of the matter is that the famed \u201cgeological timetable\u201d with its assigned dates for various ages that reach the ridiculous figures of multiplied millions and even billions of years, is a fabrication of prejudiced evolutionary scientists who have constructed the timetable to fit their theory. In no place on earth has the \u201cgeological timetable\u201d been found in a natural setting in the order of its construction by the evolutionist.<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 The evolutionist finds it stylish to speak of \u201cthe missing link\u201d between ancient and modern life forms as if there were only one. However renowned evolutionists admit that they are plural rather than singular. Dr. Louis. B. Leakey declared, \u201cThere is no one link missing \u2014 there are hundreds of links missing.\u201d Dr. Alfred S. Romer of Harvard wrote, \u201cLinks are missing and will just continue to be missing. The inconceivable thing about the \u201cmissing links,\u201d if evolution be true, is that they are totally absent<\/strong> from fossil records. If evolution has occurred, the rocks should be as full of \u201cmissing links\u201d as they are of fully developed forms.<\/span><\/p>\n [Note:<\/strong>\u00a0I wrote this article for, and it was published in the \u201cBible Thoughts\u201d Column for the Hood County News<\/em>, Granbury, Texas, July 2, 1978.]<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution:<\/strong> From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator.<\/span><\/p>\n \n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 0[Note: This MS is available in larger font on our Brief Articles 2\u00a0page.] \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 If evolution really did occur, there must be proofs of it in our natural world. The fossil record is claimed as the \u201cmost direct line of proof,\u201d and yet, upon…<\/p>\n