You've heard of the pot calling the kettle black. Well, here's a prime example. An English professor has charged creationists with lying about the fossil record. Ever since the days of Charles Darwin and Charles Lyell, evolutionists have been lying continually about what is and what is not in the fossil record-and now this evolutionist has the gall to say that opponents of his evolutionary fairly tale have lied to make his pet theory look bad. Here's the charge he makes.
For years evolutionists have told the world about the geologic column, the ordered strata of the earth's rocks in a sequence that records the history of the planet's evolution. They have confidently trumpeted the existence of fossils as proofs of their theory. On the other hand, creationists have drawn attention to the fact there is nowhere on earth where the complete geologic column can actually be observed. In other words, it is an assumption that stratification took place as evolutionists envision. Creationists also pointed to gaps in the fossil record, the absence of "intermediate species"-usually called missing links-as proof that the story of the earth as told by Darwin and his followers is a wild fantasy, devoid of anything like real proof.
Evolutionists have always been super keen to discover some missing link. The fact that their theory demands millions of such links makes it a little embarrassing that they have been unable to produce any. Of course, they have claimed to have come up with some but on closer investigation these have always proved to be something other than what evolutionists claimed them to be. At times, some evolution zealots have even stooped to downright deception to make their claims stick.
But, says this learned professor, evolutionists are not the liars here; creationists are. Creationists criticize a model of evolution that is unfair, as if evolution said that there was a direct link between apes and men whereas it claims that they both sprang from a common ancestor. According to the professor, we should think of evolution as something like a bush, with the ancestors of apes and the ancestors of man branching off from the same trunk. Now, don't you see, that does away with the need for all those troubling no-shows, the missing links. Well, no, I don't see anything of the sort!
It's funny how evolutionists insist that anything that undermines their theory can be answered by simply sticking it further back in time. In reality all that does is make the situation worse for their theory. Instead of doing away with the need for missing links between apes and men we now need to see the missing links between them and their supposed common ancestor and then the almost innumerable links along the path from sub-human to nearly-human to homo sapiens. I know Time-Life has produced very convincing artists' impressions of these stages but that's what they remain-the imagination of an artist, not the findings of a scientist.