The facts are:

• The best that can be said of this specie is that it was a bird with teeth and a long tail. In 1984, the International Archaeopteryx Conference brought together scientists who specialized in bird evolution. There was very broad agreement that Archaeopteryx was a true bird i.e. not a transitional form between a reptile and a bird.
• Another extinct bird had teeth, and many reptiles that exist today don’t have teeth.
• Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form demonstrating the change of scales into feathers and the development of the highly specialised bird lung. Michael Denton, an agnostic, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis writes “The avian lung and the feather bring us very close to answering Darwin’s challenge: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, my theory would absolutely break down.” Denton explained that it is impossible to transitionally move in small steps from a reptile to a bird, whereby each step made the different creature better able to survive. Alan Brush, an evolutionist and expert on feathers, writes in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology: “At the morphological level feathers are traditionally considered homologous with reptilian scales. However, in development, morphogenesis, gene structure, protein shape and sequence, and filament formation and structure, feathers are different.” Scales could not possibly have evolved into feathers.
• Archaeopteryx was created by God on Day 6 of the creation week. Like many variations of species it has become extinct and no birds (that we know) now carry the information to form teeth and bony tail structure.

 

2.  DINOSAURS

Evolution teaches that humans first appeared 100,000 years ago and that the dinosaurs all died out some 65 million years ago possibly from the effects of a large meteor slamming into the face of the earth.

The Bible teaches that God created the dinosaurs, together with Adam and Eve on Day 6 of the creation week; that Noah’s flood wiped out all living creatures except for those on the Ark; and, describes two dinosaur types in the Book of Job, in such a way that Job was aware of such creatures and they were living at that time.

What do we find?

• There are lots of dinosaur fossils found in sedimentary rock (i.e. rock laid down by fast-moving water depositing water-borne particles) in many places around the world. Whole ‘graveyards’ of dinosaur fossil have been found with many different types of dinosaurs jumbled in together. The evidence consistently demonstrates that the dinosaurs were buried rapidly by some cataclysmic flood. There are no signs of them being killed by some predator or dying of disease or old age – which evolutionists presuppose. Many of the fully preserved remains show the dinosaurs with their necks thrust backwards. This is a natural phenomenon that occurs when a creature dies through a lack of oxygen from drowning (called asphyxiation).
• No fossils have been found for intermediate forms between dinosaurs, or of a creature becoming a dinosaur. All dinosaur forms appear complete in the fossil record, and suddenly.
• Dinosaur fossils have been found to contain soft-tissue including blood cells. This is impossible if the fossils were 65 million years old. This evidence shows that the examined bones must be of recent origin. As one of the researchers involved in the discovery of the dinosaur blood cells, Dr Mary Schweitzer, said: “If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?” The evidence she uncovered was so confronting to evolutionists that Dr Schweitzer had a “hard time” getting her results published in scientific journals: “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,” says Schweitzer. “I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said, “None.”” Moreover, Schweitzer said that she had noticed that a tyrannosaurus rex skeleton (from Hell Creek, Montana) had a distinctive smell of death about it.  When she mentioned this to palaeontologist Jack Horner he said “Oh yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell.”[8]  If they smell they must be of recent origin. It is completely implausible that these bones still smell of death after millions and millions of years.
• If the Bible account is true, and dinosaurs lived at the same time as people, we should expect to find historical references, carvings and drawings of dinosaurs. These do indeed exist – in an abundance.

 

Right across Europe, Asia and into China, historical references to ‘dragons’ abound, with the described features of those creatures often matching scientists’ modern reconstructions of dinosaurs from fossil evidence. (The word dinosaur was only invented in 1841, so historical references before this date don’t use that term. Dinosaurs were commonly known as dragons.) Here are some examples:

 

1. A Sumerian story dating back 1000s of years tells of a hero named, Gilgamesh who, when he went to fell cedars in a remote forest, encountered a huge vicious dragon which he slew, cutting off its head as a trophy. Here is the description of the beast: “When he roars it is like the torrent of the storm, his breath is like fire, and his jaws are death itself… His teeth are dragon’s fangs, his countenance is like a lion, his charge is the rushing of the flood, with his look he crushes alike the trees of the forest and reeds in the swamp.”

 

2. There are numerous accounts in England of encounters with dragons. A poem about a man named Beowulf (c. AD 495–583) tells how he killed a monster called Grendel, which was described as being young (having been known for only 12 years), stood on its hind-legs and had two small forelimbs, one of which Beowulf tore off. The monster was a “muthbona” i.e. one who slew with his mouth or jaws, and its skin could not be cut by blows with the sword. Beowulf also killed several sea-reptiles, but eventually lost his life trying to kill a flying reptile described as ‘fifty feet in length’ – most likely a Pteranodon.

 

3. From a journal of 1405, in England, is this account: “Close to the town of Bures, near Sudbury, there has lately appeared, to the great hurt of the countryside, a dragon, vast in body, with a crested head, teeth like a saw, and a tail extending to an enormous length. Having slaughtered the shepherd of a flock, it devoured many sheep.”

 

4. In 1614, the following account was given of a strange reptile that was encountered in St Leonard’s Forest in Sussex (the sighting was near a village that was known as Dragon’s Green):

“This serpent (or dragon as some call it) is reputed to be nine feete, or rather more, in length, and shaped almost in the form of an axletree of a cart; a quantitie of thickness in the middest, and somewhat smaller at both endes. The former part, which he shootes forth as a necke, is supposed to be an elle [about 1.1m] long; with a white ring, as it were, of scales about it. The scales along his back seem to be blackish, and so much as is discovered under his bellie, appeareth to be red… it is likewise discovered to have large feete, but the eye may there be deceived, for some suppose that serpents have no feete… [It] rids aways (as we call it) as fast as a man can run. His food is thought to be for the most part, in a coniewarren, [rabbit warren] which he much frequents… There are likewise upon either side of him discovered two great buches so big as a large foote-ball, and (as some thinke) will in time grow to wings, but God, I hope, will (to defend the poor people in the neighbourhood) that he shall be destroyed before he grows to fledge.”

 

This dragon was seen in various places within a distance of 5-6 kilometres, and the report named some of the still-living witnesses who had seen it. One of the locals was said to have set his two mastiffs on to the monster, and apart from losing his dogs he was fortunate to escape alive from the encounter. When approached the report says “the monster was… of countenance very proud and at the sight or hearing of men or cattle will raise his neck upright and seem to listen and looke about, with great arrogancy.”

 

5. China has always been renowned for its dragon stories, and dragons have always been prominent on Chinese pottery, paintings, embroidery and carvings.

 

These Chinese artefacts, thousands of years old, all depict easily recognised depictions of dinosaurs.

 

6. The dragon ensign has been used by many armies in the past. The purple-dragon ensign, called the “drakonteion”, became the ceremonial standard of Roman emperors. In England, the dragon was used prominently as a royal ensign in war, for example Richard I, in 1191 and Henry III, in 1245.

Royal Standard Henry VII (1485-1509).

 

7. Australian Aborigines have legends regarding a creature they call a bunyip. It is described as a huge creature that inhabited reedy swamps, capable of killing and devouring people.

 

In the mid-1800s, reports of the alleged discovery of bunyip bones caused great interest. A newspaper reported that one of the bones found was shown to an Aboriginal who immediately recognised it as being the bone of a bunyip. He was asked to draw the ‘bunyip’. His drawing was taken and shown to other Aborigines who could not have had the opportunity to communicate with each other, and everyone of them claimed that the bone and picture were that of a bunyip.

The newspaper reported a number of alleged sightings of the bunyip. This is the description it gave:

“The Bunyip, then, is represented as uniting the characteristics of a bird and of an alligator. It has a head resembling an emu, with a long bill, at the extremity of which is a transverse projection on each side, with serrated edges like the bone of the stingray. Its body and legs partake of the nature of the alligator. The hind legs are remarkably thick and strong, and the fore legs are much longer, but still of great strength. The extremities are furnished with long claws, but the blacks say its usual method of killing its prey is by hugging it to death. When in the water it swims like a frog, and when on shore it walks on its hind legs with its head erect, in which position it measures twelve or thirteen feet in height.”

 

8. Numerous engravings, carvings and drawings of dinosaurs are found throughout the world. Here are just a few:

 (see http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/)

 

This drawing was made by North American Indians that lived in the area that is now Utah between 150 B.C. and 1200 A.D. It resembles a sauropod.

 

 

 

 

 

The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina depicts scenes from Egypt around the river Nile in the second century BC. The top portion of this piece of depicts African animals being hunted by black-skinned warriors. These men are pursuing what appears to be some type of dinosaur. The Greek Letters above the reptilian animal in question are KROKODILOPARDALIS, which is literally translated Crocodile-Leopard (apparently identifying an agile reptilian creature).

 

 

 

Brass engravings dating from the 1400s at Carlisle Cathedral in England depict creatures that are easily recognised as dinosaurs. (Together with these engravings are others including fish, dogs, a pig, a bird and other familiar animals.)

 

A drawing of a dragon by a Chinese artist made in 1244

 

 

An English woodcut fashioned in 1515 of St George slaying the dragon.

• In the Bible (Job 40:15-41:33) there are two descriptions of creatures that are easily recognised as dinosaurs. The first, Behemoth, is a land-dwelling dinosaur and the second, Leviathan, a sea-dwelling dinosaur. The person speaking in the passage is God, and he is talking to a man named Job. God is describing these creatures in a manner that Job is aware of such creatures. (The book of Job is one of the oldest in the Bible. A copy was found amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, therefore, the descriptions cannot possibly be a modern fabrication.)

 

“Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox. What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly! His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit. His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron. He ranks first among the works of God …… When the river rages, he is not alarmed; he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth. Can anyone capture him by the eyes, or trap him and pierce his nose?

 

“Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope? Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?…Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears? If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again! Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering. No one is fierce enough to rouse him. …”I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form. Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle? Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth?His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together;each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted. His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn.Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out.Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds. His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.Strength resides in his neck; dismay goes before him.The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable.His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone.When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing.The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood.Arrows do not make him flee; slingstones are like chaff to him.A club seems to him but a piece of straw; he laughs at the rattling of the lance.His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.He makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair. Nothing on earth is his equal– a creature without fear.”

 

(Furthermore, in the King James Version of the Old Testament, the term “dragon” is used more than 20 times. The KJV was published in 1611, so the translators used the term in a meaningful way that the reader would understand. The audience therefore was familiar with such a creature.)

 

What about the extinction of dinosaurs? Didn’t they all die out 65 million years ago because of a large meteor strike?

Evolutionists have no explanation for the sudden extinction of the dinosaurs:

“Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions at one particular point in time, approximately 65 million years ago? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the deaths, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea: but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land-dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists.”

Alan Charig, “A New Look At The Dinosaurs”, p. 150

Most people think it was a meteor that wiped them out, because such a catastrophe is popular amongst news writers – it preys on people’s fears and imaginations. But for evolutionists themselves, as the quote above demonstrates, it remains a mystery.

From a creationist perspective their extinction is readily understood. Noah’s flood destroyed all land dwelling animals, including dinosaurs. Although two of every kind of dinosaur was preserved on the Ark, after the flood conditions were much more harsh than the pre-flood environment. Extinctions of animals now become a high possibility. Moreover, just like the dodo bird which was hunted to extinction, it is very likely that some dinosaurs perished in the same way because they were a real threat, as the historic references demonstrate. Many animals alive today are on the endangered species list for similar reasons.

Finally, just like the Coelacanth fish and the Wollemi pine, which were thought to have become extinct many millions of years ago, but have been found alive and well in recent times, it is possible that dinosaurs are still alive today. For instance, sightings have been made of creatures in Africa and New Guinea that could well be living dinosaurs:

 

1. In Africa:

“Over the past 100 years, there have been many reports of sightings, in a remote area of central Africa, of a swamp-dwelling animal known to local villagers as ‘mokele-mbembe’— which when translated means the ‘blocker-of-rivers’. It is described as living mainly in the water, its size somewhere between that of a hippopotamus and an elephant, but with a squat body and a long neck that enables it to pluck leaves and fruit from plants near the water’s edge. The creature is said to climb the shore at daytime in search of food. Witnesses’ drawings show that mokele-mbembe resembles nothing recognisable as still living on Earth, but it does bear a startling likeness to a sauropod dinosaur known to us by its fossil skeletons—similar in shape to a small Apatosaurus.

The imprints of clawed feet and other tell-tale animal trail marks in the jungle around the swamps clearly show evidence of a large, heavy creature that is not a crocodile, hippopotamus or elephant. Most reported sightings of mokele-mbembe itself are by local fishermen who, while fishing or travelling by dugout canoe, have unexpectedly encountered the creature. However, there have been scientific expeditions mounted specifically to find the animal in the swamps that dominate much of Congo, Gabon and Cameroon. University-trained biologist Marcellin Agnagna described what he saw on one such expedition to remote Lake Tele in 1983:

“At approximately 2:30pm, … [we] were then able to observe a strange animal, with a wide back, a long neck, and a small head. … The animal was located at about 300 metres from the edge of the lake, and we were able to adv[a]nce about 60 metres in the shallow water, placing us at a distance of about 240 metres from the animal, which had become aware of our presence and was looking around as if to determine the source of the noise.

Dinkoumbou [a local villager] continued to shout with fear. The f[r]ontal part of the animal was brown, while the back part of the neck appeared black and shone in the sunlight. The animal partly submerged, and remained visible for 20 minutes with only the neck and head above the water. It then submerged completely, … no further sighting of the animal took place. It can be said with certainty that the animal we saw was Mokele-mbembe, that it was quite alive, and, furthermore, that it is known to many inhabitants of the Likouala region [an area of swampland about the same size as Florida]. Its total length from head to back visible above the waterline was estimated at 5 metres.’ “

http://creation.com/mokele-mbembe-a-living-dinosaur

 

2. In New Guinea:

“According to a report in Papua New Guinea’s The Independent newspaper, a ‘dinosaur-like reptile’ was seen on two occasions in the Lake Murray area, in Western Province.

On December 11, 1999, villagers travelling in a canoe reported seeing the creature wading in shallow water near Boboa.

The following day, a Seventh Day Adventist pastor and a church elder say they saw the animal not far from the first sighting.

The creature was described as having a body ‘as long as a dump truck’ and nearly two metres wide, with a long neck and a long slender tail. It was walking on two hind legs ‘as thick as coconut palm tree trunks’, and had two smaller forelegs. The head was similar in shape to a cow’s head, with large eyes and ‘sharp teeth as long as fingers.’ The skin was likened to that of a crocodile, and the creature had ‘largish triangular scoops on the back.’”

http://creation.com/a-living-dinosaur

 3.   What about producing life in a test-tube? Haven’t scientists proved that it is possible that life spontaneously occurred millions of years ago? [9]

Evolutionists need a starting point for life, in order to begin the process of evolution’s relentless upward climb. The problem is that we never observe life arising spontaneously today. So they have a theory that given the required conditions life will appear from non-living matter (this theory is called abiogenesis). And they believe those conditions did exist millions and millions of years ago.

Darwin wrote in a letter to a friend:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present.— But if (and oh what a big if) we could conceive in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity etc present, that a protein compound was chemically formed, ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured, or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.”

This chemical soup in a warm little pond with light, heat and electricity, is an idea that was used in an experiment conducted some 50 years ago, called the Miller–Urey experiment. This experiment supposedly proved Darwin was right, that life can begin from non-life, in a ‘warm little pond’. Most textbooks cite this experiment as the major or only research that proves abiogenesis. It is this experiment from which most people get the idea that it is possible to create life in a test-tube.

Since that experiment much has been discovered in the field of microbiology. (The same year that the Miller-Urey experiment was conducted, the double-helix structure of dna was discovered.) Using the knowledge we now have regarding the incredibly complex processes of life inside the cell, the findings of the Miller-Urey experiment actually presents evidence for the impossibility of life arising spontaneously.

The Miller–Urey experiments involved filling a sealed glass apparatus with certain gases (methane, ammonia and hydrogen) together with steam from boiling water. These were thought to be the necessary elements to form life, that might have been available on a primitive earth.

Next, they passed a high-voltage charge (60,000 volts) through the gases to  simulate a lightning strike. The resulting mixture, was cooled as it passed through a condenser and dripped into a water trap.

The eventual result after repeated tests and modification, was the production of very small amounts of amino acids which was and is claimed to be proof of abiogenesis. But this is no proof at all – life was not created. Amino acids are used to produce proteins which are signature molecules of life, however, they are still not life. Life requires self-replicating cells that create proteins, which in turn are formed from amino acids. There is a vast unbridged chasm between a simple molecular structure (i.e. the combination of a few atoms of different elements) like an amino acid to an astonishing complex machine like the cell. An amino acid is like one length of steel on a shelf, in a huge computerised and mechanised factory full of robots working hard to produce another factory like itself, which is the cell!

Moreover, there are other intractable problems for evolution concerning the experiment:

• the conditions they used to create amino acids would destroy proteins i.e. proteins could not be formed in that environment and so life would be impossible
• together with the amino acids the experiment produced toxic chemicals harmful to life were also produced, including cyanide and carbon monoxide

 

flagellate protozoa – a single cell living organism

• Michael Denton in his book Darwinian Evolution: a Theory in Crisis writes that the basic structure of the cell is “… essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. … In terms of their basic biochemical design … no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.” In other words, there is absolutely no indication of increases in complexity at the level of the cell between basic life forms such as a single-cell protozoa to the most complex i.e. human beings. The basic requirements for life to generate a self-replicating cell, are the same for every living organism – they are astonishingly complex.

Here is Denton’s depiction of a cell:

“To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is twenty kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would then see would be an object of unparalleled complexity and adaptive design. On the surface of the cell we would see millions of openings, like the port holes of a vast space ship, opening and closing to allow a continual stream of materials to flow in and out. If we were to enter one of these openings we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity. We would see endless highly organised corridors and conduits branching in every direction away from the perimeter of the cell, some leading to the central memory bank in the nucleus and others to assembly plants and processing units…

We would wonder at the level of control implicit in the movement of so many objects down so many seemingly endless conduits, all in perfect unison. We would see all around us, in every direction we looked, all sorts of robot-like machines. We would notice that the simplest of the functional components of the cell, the protein molecules, were astonishingly complex pieces of molecular machinery, each one consisting of about three thousand atoms arranged in highly organised 3-D spatial formation. We would wonder even more as we watched the strangely purposeful activities of these weird molecular machines. Particularly as we realised that, despite all our accumulated knowledge of physics and chemistry, the task of designing one such molecular machine – that is one single functional protein molecule – would be beyond our capacity…Yet the life of the cell depends on the integrated activities of thousands, certainly tens, and probably hundreds of thousands of different protein molecules.” 

Michael Denton Darwinian Evolution a Theory in Crisis (pp 328-329)

 

• amino acids do not bond automatically in the right way to form proteins. Intelligence needs to act upon the amino acids to make them line up in the necessary way i.e. the sequencing instructions contained in the dna is absolutely necessary, to force the amino acids to bond in very specific ways. Paul Davies, a famous evolutionist, writes:

“… just as bricks alone don’t make a house, so it takes more than a random collection of amino acids to make life. Like house bricks, the building blocks of life have to be assembled in a very specific and exceedingly elaborate way before they have the desired function.”

The Miller-Urey experiment does not explain in any way where this information to arrange the amino acids came from. Paul Davies openly admits “There is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.”

(The problem is even worse for evolutionists, because not only is the information in the dna necessary, there must be a means to use or decode that information. Just as someone must know the English language to read a book written in English, the dna must be able to be read and interpreted correctly. In this regard, Karl Popper wrote

“What makes the origin of life and of the genetic code a disturbing riddle is this: the genetic code is without any biological function unless it is translated; that is, unless it leads to the synthesis of the proteins whose structure is laid down by the code. But … the machinery by which the cell (at least the non-primitive cell, which is the only one we know) translates the code consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in the DNA. Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code. Thus we may be faced with the possibility that the origin of life … becomes an impenetrable barrier to science …”)

 

• the amino acids produced in the experiment possessed the normal chemical composition of a 50/50 mix of left and right-handed patterns. The problem is that proteins are all formed from left-handed amino acids. In a 50/50 mix the amino acids all bond together, they cannot exist as independent molecules available to bond as proteins. Thus life is again impossible.

 

In conclusion, while it widely believed that the Miller-Urey experiment proved that life can be created without the need for a Creator, the evidence shows just the opposite – the experiment demonstrates that life is impossible without the creative intelligence and power of Almighty God.

 

 

(See  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_zD3NxSsD8  for an animation of molecular machines and processes inside a cell.)    

 

4.  What about human embryos? Don’t they go through evolutionary stages and are not really human beings?[10]

 

Most people have heard of or been taught the idea that the human embryo goes through various evolutionary stages, such as having gills like a fish, a tail like a monkey, a face like a reptile etc., as the embryo develops in the womb. (This idea is called “embryonic recapitulation” by evolutionists.)

The idea has not only been presented to generations of high school and biology/medical students as fact, but has also been used for many years to justify abortion. Abortionists claimed that the unborn child being killed was still in the fish stage or the monkey stage, and had not yet become a human being.

This idea is totally false and is completely discredited by experts in the field of embryology (even though they may still believe in evolution).   

The fact is that this idea began as a fraud in 1874 by a German zoologist Ernst Haeckel, who fabricated drawings of different embryos to justify his argument that evolution was true. (He called it the “Biogenetic Law”.)

Here are his drawings. They supposedly show the embryos of fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, cow, rabbit, and human in three stages of development. They were claimed by by him to show that all embryos look the same in early stages, with the the more evolved proceeding through increasingly advanced stages.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here are actual photographs together with his drawings of the very first stages of fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit and human. Haekel basically lied to convince people to believe in evolution.

 

Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, exposed the extent of Haekel’s fraud, in an article published in the journal Anatomy and Embryology. Richardson in an interview about his article for The Times (London) said ‘This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.’

What about the “fish gills” in human embyos? They are not slits like fish gills but throat grooves and pouches that develop into absolutely essential parts of human anatomy—the lower jaw, tongue, thymus gland, the parathyroid, etc. The middle ear canals come from the second pouches, and the parathyroid and thymus glands come from the third and fourth.

What about the “tail”? The human embryo looks as if it has a ‘tail’ because the end of the spine sticks out noticeably at one-month, but this is the spine from which muscles and limbs develop from, it is not a tail at all. The very last bone in the spine (the coccyx) is said by some to be our ‘tail bone’ and a left-over from our ape ancestry. But again nothing could be further from the truth. The coccyx is just the last bone of our invertebrate and plays an essential role for the attachment of muscles which enable us to walk upright.

 

[1] Letter to Elsa Einstein, August 11, 1913; CPAE, Vol. 5, Doc. 466

[2]See  http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/fossils and http://creation.com/fossils-questions-and-answers for a lot of information regarding fossils

[3] Sunderland, L., Darwin’s Enigma, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, pp. 101–102, 1998. 

[4] Gould, S.J., Evolution’s erratic pace, Natural History 86(5):14, May 1977.

[5] Alt, D., Glacial Lake Missoula and Its Humungous Floods, Mountain Press, Missoula, Montana, p. 180, 2001.

[6] See  http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers and

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers#/topic/apemen-missing-links

[7] See http://creation.com/bird-evolution-flies-out-the-window

[8] http://creation.com/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery

[9] See http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

[10] See http://creation.com/fraud-rediscovered