Is it just me, or does the evolutionary story keep changing?

[THEME MUSIC] Hm.

Hi, John.

Hey.

Woo.

Oh.

Hey, where'd this trunk come from?

Up in the attic.

I was cleaning it out earlier, and I found it.

And it's got a whole bunch of junk in here.

But some of it is actually helping me with our science homework.

Hey, hey, check this out.

Oh, man.

Oh, was this your grandpa's old yearbook?

JOHN: Yeah, it must have been.

JANE: Look how out of date everyone looks.

Was this really in style back then?

Do you think our kids are going to look at our yearbooks and say the same things?

Nah.

Nah.

So how'd you say this trunk helped you?

Well, I'm starting to get the picture on human evolution.

Whew.

Ooh.

[COUGHING] This book was published in 1925 by Sir Arthur Keith.

And now he was the president of the Royal Anthropological Society of Great Britain.

JANE: And the skull?

JOHN: It was found in 1912.

Now it called Piltdown Man the find of the 20th century.

I think it was the "New York Times" said that it proves the theory of evolution.

There were like 500 articles published when they first found this.

Then in 1953, they discovered that the skull was a fake.

Are you serious?

JOHN: Oh, yeah.

They took chemicals, and they aged the skull.

They made it look like it was really, really old.

And then the jaw is actually from an orangutan.

And the guy who discovered it, he actually filed the teeth down and made it look real.

What the heck were scientists thinking?

Have you ever heard of Nebraska Man?

Nebraska Man was the first American ape-man fossil to be discovered.

And Harold Cooke found just a tooth.

Huh, I bet that made for a snoozing museum display.

JOHN: Yeah, well, it was big enough for the "New York Times," OK.

And then it went viral for back then.

And the "London News" did a whole drawing on it from a single tooth.

There's still a picture of him on Wikipedia.

JANE: They drew all that based on a tooth?

Yeah, but 10 years later, they discovered that that tooth was actually from an extinct pig.

No way.

Yeah, so Piltdown Man was the popular proof for evolution for 40 years.

And Nebraska Man was the popular proof for 10.

Makes you wonder about what they're teaching us today.

I'm way ahead of you.

Take a look at my little brother's sixth grade history book.

Really, your brother's book?

You have way too much time on your hands.

Hm.

Eh.

Well, some of these ape men look familiar.

Long-lost relatives of yours?

No, I'm just kidding.

But no, it's because they're in our book as well.

Oh, well in our book, they say Australopithecus afarensis evolved 3.82, three million years ago.

But in the sixth grade book, Australopithecus evolving four to five million years ago.

Uh, huh.

Now look at this.

This is an old 1951 "Life" magazine publication.

JANE: According to this, Australopithecus lived a million to 500,000 years ago.

Wow, that's different by a few million years.

Hm mm.

These dates are all over the place.

Yeah, well, it gets worse.

So this is our biology, the Holt biology book.

And it shows Homo habilis as living 1.6 to 1.9 million years ago.

But in the sixth grade one, it's 2.4 million years ago.

So which one's true?

I guess it depends on which class you're in.

So what I'm wondering is if any of these dates are correct.

It looks like today's truth is just tomorrow's fiction.

If you look back at all the textbooks, they're all published at about the same time.

Take a look at my little brother's sixth grade book.

Now, this book shows all of the popular fossils today.

OK, so here we are, Homo sapiens, right.

JOHN: Right, but check out what came before us.

JANE: Homo erectus.

JOHN: Right.

And while he had a human body, evolutionists like to point out that he had a different skull, at least a modern human skull.

Now, the journal "Science" back in October of 2013, they reported they found skulls in Georgia, like Russia.

It shows how different the Homo erectus skulls can look.

JANE: Wow, they are so different.

JOHN: Homo erectus and human skulls can be very similar.

In fact, they did a study on 202 modern-day Aborigines, like Australians, on the shape of their skulls.

And they found that 14 of the 17 traits were the same on the Aborigines as on the Homo erectus skulls.

So it looks like Homo erectus wasn't becoming human but was already human?

Exactly.

The next ape man back is Homo habilis.

"Homo" means "human." So they're trying to make him look more human-like than he really is.

Richard Leakey is a famous evolutionist.

And he said, "Of the several dozen specimens that have been said at one time or another to belong to Homo habilis, at least half of them don't.

But there is no consensus as to which 50% should be excluded.

No one anthropologist's 50% is quite the same as another's." So they can't even really classify which fossils are supposed to go into which category.

In fact, some scientists are fighting to have Homo habilis reclassified as Australopithecus.

JANE: Which one?

Australopithecus is Lucy.

Oh, yeah, I've heard of her.

Yeah, now Donald Johanson in 1973 discovered just the shin and the leg bone.

Now the way they line up makes scientists think that she could walk upright.

Hm mm.

JOHN: Hey, there's a picture of her.

JANE: Wow, there's a lot of her missing.

JOHN: Hey, at least it's more than a tooth.

JANE: That's true.

You want to see the fragments of the skull that they found?

Sure.

JOHN: All right, wait for it.

Booyah.

JANE: Wow.

JOHN: That's what they found.

It's not that much.

Man, there's a lot of skulls in here.

Was your grandpa a witch doctor?

No, he was a yard sailor.

Now, look at what we have here.

We have here a modern bonobo monkey skull, and we have Lucy.

So the brown pieces are the actual fragments of Lucy's skull that they found.

JANE: Well, they look so alike.

JOHN: Her brain is only a third the size of a modern human's, about the average chimp brain size.

And she only stood about three and 1/2 feet tall.

Take a look at the way that Lucy has been portrayed in like the media, like in books and films, online.

JANE: Wow.

JOHN: Everywhere.

JANE: They really went out of their way to make her look human-like.

Take a look in our other biology book.

JANE: Oh, wow.

Hey, look at the whites of those eyes.

You know, I've been to a lot of different zoos.

And I've seen a lot of different apes.

And each of them have completely brown eyes, and not the eye whites that us humans have.

Man, it even looks like she's thinking about something.

Yeah, bananas.

I don't think they found any eyeball fossils.

But if you wanted to make an ape man look more human, changing the colors of the eye whites in pictures is a good way to do it.

That's true.

JOHN: Here's a picture of what she probably looked like.

JANE: Man, what a difference.

JOHN: Yeah, well, they do say they have found several complete skeletons of the Australopithecus, though not specifically Lucy.

They found around 360, 362 actual specimens from the species Australopithecus, specifically Lucy.

However, Charles Oxnard said, "The australopithecines known over the last several decades are now irrevocably removed from a place in the evolution of human bipedalism.

All this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks." Well, now you understand why I've been digging through this chest.

I mean, really, the way it looks is that Lucy is just an extinct ape.

I'm kind of feeling angry, like I've been duped.

JOHN: Same thing with Neanderthals.

Check out these illustrations that came out after they started finding Neanderthal fossils.

Check this one out.

This was published in the "Illustrated London News" about 100 years ago.

JANE: Whoa.

OK, that's pretty brutish.

Now do you want to know what they think he looks like now?

Sure.

Uh, wow.

Just recently, scientists have discovered that Neanderthals buried their dead.

They worked with tools.

They wore makeup.

They controlled fire.

And they even found in a cave in Israel that Neanderthals and humans were living together and building families together, and in other places as well.

OK, well, OK, you know what, that settles it.

That settles it.

If they could live together and if they have children together, then Neanderthals are just humans.

But the difference is that their appearance varies, just like different people groups today can vary.

So either these fossils are completely human or completely ape with nothing in between.

Now, a specimen is basically any piece of bone, including teeth, that they find.

All the specimens from all the different ape men that they've actually found, you can fit them in the back of a small pickup truck.

Are you serious?

Dead serious.

Now if our textbooks won't address the new evidence, what does the Bible say?

Man was created on the sixth day in God's image out of dirt, and God breathed life into him.

And I Corinthians 15:39 says, "All flesh is not the same kind of flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds." That's sums it up pretty nicely.

Yep.

So what do you think of grandpa's chest?

I thought it was amazing.

Me, too.

And we learned that just like a style can go out of fashion, the popular ape-men theories and their fossils do the same thing.

And while their theory keeps changing, God's word never does.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it.

Is it just me or has the evolution from one kind of animal into another ever been seen?

So Darwin's finches left South America, traveled to the Galapagos Islands, and over time, each island developed its own species.

But is that really evolution?

Jane, Jane, Jane, look at it.

I've got a new app for my phone, flashlight.

I love this phone.

It's got like everything you need on it.

It's got GPS.

It's got constellations.

What did people do before smartphones?

Their homework.

Dude, watch this.

JANE: Nice.

Now, can we turn the lights back on so we can study?

JOHN: Yeah, uh, sure, you and your cell.

I know, right.

This phone and me, we're going to take over the world.

Can it make me a puppy?

Yeah, oops, uh, wrong icon.

I'll have them on in just a second.

Jane?

Jane?

How did I even-- how does that even?

Man, I guess those extra gigabytes really paid off.

JANE: Henrietta, Henrietta.

Jane?

JANE: There you are.

Oh, man, since the lights went out again, I went to make sure Henrietta had some water.

Oh, come here babies.

Ah, well, don't we look cute together?

Yeah, the resemblance is, ahem, frightening.

Oh, you didn't think I was-- You said, make me a puppy.

Oh, your smartphone is pretty amazing.

But it can only do things it's programmed to do.

Hey, that's it.

That's the difference.

What?

What's the difference?

JANE: Um, I've been reading through our textbook.

And they keep giving great examples of how creatures change, like Darwin's finches or these tortoises.

But this isn't evolution by natural forces if these animals were programmed to adapt like that.

I see what you're saying.

Many evolutionists consider any change as evolution, which makes it seem like we're always evolving upward.

But not all changes come from accidental errors through mutation.

Some preprogrammed variation helps animals adapt through genetic recombining.

Now, look at this.

Our book lists the sources of genetic variation.

This page lists the two main sources of change as mutation and genetic recombination.

So mutations would be accidents, errors.

Right.

Mutations are usually caused when there's an error copying a creature's genetic information, which is found in its DNA.

It could lose, duplicate, or even copy letters in the genetic code.

But if I delete, scramble, or duplicate letters, won't I eventually get a new word?

Sure, but a new word doesn't necessarily mean anything.

So if I scramble the letters in "puppy," it just means jibberish.

Exactly.

Mutations might be able to create a new combination of letters, but it needs to have a meaning for the cell to use as a blueprint later on.

In other words, a code isn't really a code without some assigned meaning.

Jibberish can't create anything.

So mutations are always bad?

Yeah, look at what it says.

"Some mutations such as those that cause genetic diseases may be lethal.

Other mutations may lower fitness by decreasing an individual's ability to survive and reproduce.

Still other mutations may improve an individual's ability to survive and reproduce." It looks like they agree that mutations are bad.

But then why do they say some may improve an individual?

They give you an example right here.

"Over the past 20 years, mutations in the mosquito genome have made many African mosquitoes resistant to the chemical pesticides once used to control them." OK, so it looks like the mosquitoes are better off because of mutation.

Yes, but what they don't tell you is that resistance actually came from a loss of information in the mosquito's genetic code.

The mosquito's ability to control its enzyme production is now messed up.

And one of the strange side effects of too many enzymes is increased pesticide resistance.

However, normal mosquitoes without the disease are much healthier in the wild, where there is no pesticide.

So it was a loss of information, but it was a benefit for those mosquitoes, right.

Well, they only benefit by being more resistant to the pesticide.

The point is by losing information, they lost control of an enzyme's production.

Now evolution needs to explain gains of information over time.

And the same goes for other examples they give, like bacteria becoming more resistant, bone density, humans becoming more resistant to HIV.

But if a population of creatures continues to lose information, could it be deadly for them?

Bingo.

But here's the real problem.

People count on that loss of information from mutations to create the genetic blueprint for every living creature on Earth out of nothing.

That's crazy.

No way.

That's so impossible.

It destroys evolution.

Right.

OK, so what about the other changes, program change, or you called it genetic recombination?

Look at what it says here.

"Most heritable differences are due not to mutations but to genetic recombination." So God not only created all the animals, He also packed them with enough genetic information that would allow them to adapt to different environments and varieties we see today.

So adaptation is real?

Yeah, I saw an explanation of it in the "Focus on Earth Science." "Individuals with characteristics that are poorly suited to the environment are less likely to survive and reproduce." JANE: "Over time, poorly suited characteristics may disappear from the species." So a population of animals can adapt by expressing variety over time.

But there are limits to how much they can change.

In what way?

JOHN: Think about rolling dice.

If you had two dice, you could roll anything between two and 12.

The variety is programmed into the dice, but you can't roll anything higher or lower.

I get what you're saying.

Likewise, animals can express a lot of variety, but there's a limit because the finite genetic information they have.

Exactly.

And while we've seen some pretty amazing varieties within the kinds God created, like in dogs, one basic kind of animal can never change into another.

JANE: And that fits with all the examples we see in these textbooks.

Although they like to point out the differences in finch beaks and tortoises.

It's just adaptation within the genetic limits of that kind.

Right.

But then they pass it off as evolution.

And you know, I used to think that all these arguments really showed evolution.

But then I got to thinking, studying changes in a beak shape, like Darwin's finches, won't show you where that beak came from.

And despite the minor changes, a finch is still just a finch.

But the truth is what we read in Genesis 1:25.

"And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind.

And God saw that it was good." So adaptations are kind of like the apps on your phone.

Yeah, I can't change a person into a puppy.

But I can run the programming that's already on my phone.

Oy.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it.

Is it just me, or is natural selection kind of blind when it comes to evolution?

John?

Where is he?

Huh.

Let's see here.

Ooh, messing with my privacy.

Heh?

JOHN: Ow.

John, are you OK?

JOHN: Yeah, no, I'm, I'm fine.

Are you sure you're OK?

Yeah, no, I, I just got back from the eye doctor's.

They dilated my pupils.

Getting here was a little dicey but I'm starting to see a lot better now.

Uh, then why are you talking to a coat rack?

I thought you were looking a little taller.

I was going to get your help deciding on what swatches to pick out, but I think this is a really bad time.

No, no, no, I can do it.

Give me a try.

OK, well, I started out by liking this one.

Yeah, this one.

But then I figured I'd tune it back a bit.

Yeah, what do you think?

I like this one.

Yeah.

Hm, no, I think we're going to work on this a little later.

Whatever.

We better get to studying.

What are we studying today?

Natural selection, I've already started reading it.

There's a great definition in our biology textbook.

So "natural selection is the process by which organisms with variation most suited to their local environment survive and leave more offspring." So evolutionary theory holds that natural selection is one of the forces that drives evolution?

JANE: How does that work?

JOHN: Well, evolutionists say mutation happens in the sex cells of a creature, and its offspring exhibits the resulting trait difference, like a new feather color or something.

The trait can give it an advantage or a disadvantage.

A beneficial mutation would cause it to become a little better at surviving in an environment than the non-mutants.

So its descendants, and thus the trait, eventually outnumber the others.

Then the scenario repeats with another variation, supposedly driving evolution forward.

But rather than this process producing just the varieties we see among animal kinds, they believe this process built those animals from completely different ones and can eventually lead to one kind of animal turning into another.

But this has never been observed.

Fish are still fish, and finches are still finches.

And here in the biology textbook, they point out that the polar bear had the advantage as a predator in the snow because of its white coat.

And it also shows that if you start with yellow and green grasshoppers, two different traits inherited from the parents, the green may outnumber the yellow in a green environment because they're harder for birds to see and catch.

So did the grasshoppers think through how other animals would avoid it if it looked more camouflage?

Did it know how to genetically engineer itself to express those colors?

Did a polar bear engineer its own white coat?

No, but that's not evolutionists believe.

They think that these changes happened randomly in the DNA, influencing an individual's survivability.

Evolution is a blind process, no offense.

Intelligent choices supposedly have nothing to do with it.

Evolutionists believe natural selection figured out how to design an eye, but how.

It would have to build and preserve over who knows how many generations hundreds of complicated interacting eye parts, including proteins that were all useless until the whole package was eventually assembled.

How did it know to engineer animals for flight or a navigation system so tiny it can fit in the head of a monarch butterfly, which is smaller than a pin?

How did it wire a human brain that's far more complicated than our best computers if it is a totally blind process with no goal or purpose in view?

You're right.

Natural selection is just a process.

It doesn't have a brain.

It can't think or design.

It had no foreknowledge of what it was trying to accomplish.

And yet, coupled with mutations, it's been assigned godlike powers to create things way beyond man's understanding.

Yes.

It's like they've replaced God's power with random mutations and natural selection.

As the textbook points out, it favors a creature's overall ability to survive.

But the actual changes are happening deep down in the creature on a microscopic level inside the genes.

Wh-- wh-- wh-- wait.

So you're saying that when certain individuals die, all their genes just go away, meaning that natural selection has no power in selecting individual genes?

JOHN: Well, it can't see genes, just whole organisms, kind of like me trying to help you pick out swatches that I can't even see.

But it looks like you're doing better now.

I am.

So how about this one?

Or maybe not.

Also natural selection is supposed to mean "survival of the fittest." But what if someone, nobody in particular, had their eyes dilated and was leaving when they knocked over the fish tank in the waiting room?

You didn't.

Anyway if exactly half of them died because I didn't-- they didn't get them in the water, was it survival of the fittest?

No, it was survival of the luckiest.

Yeah, well, here's a picture of two mutant flies and a normal one.

Which one do you think is the most likely to survive in a particular environment?

None of them when I hit them with my fly swatter.

All right, all right, all right, the normal one would probably survive best.

But it depends on the environment, right.

Yeah, so evolution that turns a simpler organism into a fruit fly relies on mutants becoming better able to survive as new genetic information is added and then surviving to pass their genes onward.

Mutants are usually worse off since most mutations are harmful.

And natural selection actually cleanses the population by killing the less fit mutants.

This might help keep the most effective traits within a population.

So the real world works exactly opposite of what evolution requires.

Bingo.

And while lots of small mutations can give a survival advantage in specific environments, virtually all the real-life examples show a loss of genetic information, not a gain.

Evolutionists have tried to propose various genetic explanations, like gene duplication, but they're putting their faith in a process that has never actually been observed.

What's gene duplication?

It's when a whole gene accidentally gets copied, and then it mutates to become another new gene.

Nice story.

Have scientists ever seen that happen?

Nope, never.

And most examples of supposed evolution in action involve things like chemical pathways and small changes in proteins.

But how do you get a fin to turn into a limb and then a human hand?

They tell interesting stories about how it must have just happened.

But I can't find any evidence it actually happened.

So a typical mutation removes information, but only a mutation that can add information really explain how philosophers came from fish.

And if you think about it, natural selection can't create anything.

It can only deselect by killing all individuals with traits that are already present in the population.

Wow, you're right.

You can only select something that is already present.

How could nature ever add information to some DNA by subtracting some of what is already there?

Great question.

And speaking of information, here's another question evolutionists have not even come close to answering.

How could chemicals from early Earth spontaneously form molecules with information?

That's a stretch.

So natural selection can't do anything without mutations, and mutations can't even happen unless DNA forms from some muddy puddle billions of years ago.

You got it.

There's no known mechanism for creating information like we find in DNA from simple matter.

Information always comes from a mind.

JANE: And God is the mind behind creating the DNA in the first place.

Yeah.

But the biggest problem I have with natural selection being able to create new kinds of animals is found right here in our biology textbook.

Let me see if I can find it then.

You're starting to see really well.

I am.

Now Charles Darwin is credited for discovering natural selection and describing how it led to the evolution of different animals and plants.

Right here it tells the story.

"After reading Malthus, Darwin realized that if more individuals are produced than can survive, members of a population must compete to obtain food, living space, and other limited necessities of life.

Darwin described this as the struggle for existence." Malthus?

Oh, I remember him from history.

He believed much of the world's problems were due to people reproducing faster than our food supply.

Right.

Evolution claims that a never-ending chain of struggle and death is what created life.

But the Bible paints a different picture.

Genesis 3 says that death, pain, and suffering came from man's rebellion against God.

And Romans 8 is clear that Earth is under a curse because of our sin.

But God didn't leave it there.

I Corinthians 15 says that one day, death will be conquered.

"O Death, where is thy sting?

O Grave, where is thy victory?

The sting of death of sin, and the strength of sin is the law.

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." So death is a horrible thing.

The Bible calls death punishment for our sins and the last enemy.

Because Jesus Christ took that penalty in our place, we beat death by getting to spend an eternity with God.

Evolutionary history says the death of the unfit over eons changed fish into humans.

But Biblical history says that death changed already-created humans and fish and the whole universe into a place with problems that Jesus will one day solve.

Wow, it seems so strange that the things our textbook says could have so much to do with what we believe about the past and about reality.

OK, speaking of beliefs, how would you define religion?

I know this from class.

It's basically defined as a system of beliefs.

Right, so would evolution qualify as a religion?

Well, OK, the struggle for survival over millions of years of death is what supposedly created the different kinds of life on Earth, including humans.

The Bible tells us death is an enemy, not the hero.

But Jesus, the creator, promises us life if we choose to follow Him.

He has overcome death by rising from the grave.

So natural selection has no intelligence and can't even select what's happening on the genetic level.

It can only subtract from what is already present in DNA.

And it relies on death to create new kinds of life.

Wow.

You know, I'm really starting to see that natural selection really doesn't have the power that evolution needs, you know, to turn fish into apes and then people.

[CLICK] Kind of makes you think, doesn't it.

Is it just me, or does the evolutionary tree seem more like an orchard?

All right, let's see if we can do this.

Nope, that doesn't stay up.

No, you've got to stay, stay.

JOHN: Hey, Jane, so I've got to be honest.

I haven't really had a chance to study too much.

Uh huh.

But-- [SNAPS] Jane.

Sorry.

I was just taking a break.

I got this new makeup case, and I'm having a hard time figuring out where to put everything.

Now I could put this lipstick here, or no, no, no, no, no.

I'll handle this.

So we could organize it as simplest to most complex.

Or by color.

Uh, see organization just is not my thing.

Once my little sister asked me to organize all her little tiny plastic animals, it took me two days.

Organizing animals, that's like Carl Linnaeus.

Who's that?

Yeah, he was the first guy to classify animals.

Oh, oh, oh, yeah, I remember him now.

His motto was God created, Linnaeus ordered.

Yeah, his work is the basis for the classification system we still use today.

Yeah, later, Charles Darwin sketched a diagram to show how life started simple and then branched out to every creature on Earth.

He said the different branches represent the different levels of classification, a tree of life, if you will.

Oh yeah.

I keep seeing this over and over again in our textbooks.

Really?

Yeah, uh, ah, here we go.

Check out this one.

JOHN: Are researchers still trying to figure out how it happened?

There are a lot more of these diagrams.

I think they change as different researchers group them based on different features.

JOHN: These charts show groups of organisms they believe share a common ancestor.

Yeah, a group like that is called a clade, and these diagrams are called cladograms.

Hm.

Man, and I thought organizing my makeup was hard.

JOHN: So do they.

Huh.

Well, not your makeup, classifying animals.

OK, so "remember that modern evolutionary classification is a rapidly changing science with a difficult goal, to present all life on a single evolutionary tree.

As evolutionary biologists study relationships among taxa, they regularly change not only the way organisms are grouped, but also sometimes the names of groups.

Remember that cladograms are visual presentations of hypotheses about relationships, and not hard and fast facts." JOHN: Whoa, whoa, whoa, you're saying our textbooks say that cladograms are based off hypotheses not facts.

Yeah, I'll show you why.

Flip forward a page.

That's because they only have living animals or fossils for certain places on the branches.

These are real animals or fossils we've actually discovered.

But these branching points are just imaginary lines that represent the hypotheses about which animals evolved from a common ancestor.

No facts support them that can't also support different links or no links.

The transitional fossils they represent have never been found.

If they were, well, we'd see their pictures here, right.

Though evolutionists point to a few examples, there should be thousands.

JOHN: Genesis 1:21 says, "So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind.

And God saw that it was good." JANE: From the beginning, God created fully-formed kinds of animals.

So it isn't a tree like Darwin thought.

Instead it's an orchard.

God created the different kinds of animals.

And then they expressed all types of amazing variety as they bred within their kind.

JOHN: And recombining genetic possibilities that God packed into the original kinds produced that variety?

Exactly.

We see variation happening all the time.

But we've never seen the evolutionary process of mutations and selection creating new kinds.

JOHN: So dogs, apes, and people can show variety but can never morph into a new kind.

Yep, just like the orchard.

One basic tree kind can never become another.

Scientists seem to name something a new species even if there's only a minor change.

And in the fossils, the smallest variation is classified as a different species, even though we see lots of variety with some species today.

Like what?

Like in dogs, just think about all the variety in the breeds of dog kinds, canis familiaris, in the last 200 years.

If future paleontologists dug up the bones of a bulldog, a chihuahua, and a Great Dane, they would surely classify them as three different species.

But they are all the same kind.

Whether beaks of a finch change shape or color of a moth, the changes are limited.

When it's just expressing variety within the created kind.

Yep.

So evolutionists consider adjustments to existing traits evidence that evolution made those traits in the first place.

So what if God made each basic kind with potential to change some of its traits but no potential to morph into a different kind?

Dogs can breed with coyotes, and coyotes can breed with wolves.

They're called a coywolf.

So they must all be part of the same created kind.

So they have a common ancestor.

But it was the original dog kind that God created, not the transition between a reptile and a mammal like they show in these textbooks.

So fossils, the classification of animals, and the Bible are all in harmony.

JANE: That's what it looks like.

Well, all of that gives me an idea.

What if we organize your makeup by kind?

All the nail polish in one spot, all the eye stuff in another, and all the lip things elsewhere.

That's brilliant.

We do an orchard not a tree.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it.

Is it just me or is it kind of creepy that evolutionists say we're made up of spare parts?

[LOUD ENGINE NOISE] Working on your car?

I can't hear you.

Can you shut it off?

I can't hear you because the car's on.

What's in the box?

JOHN: Oh, you know, my car's left-over-- [ENGINE STOPS] Parts.

I always have a few of them left over when I'm done working on it.

JANE: Parts you don't need?

Pretty sure.

Are you-- are you sure you don't need these?

Or you know this?

Not really, but I started the engine and it runs without this junk.

You know, all this reminds me about what our textbook says about vestigial structures.

Can you help me grab it out of my backpack?

Hm mm.

How do you not know what's in your car?

[LAUGHING] Uh, is something wrong?

No, no, no, no, no.

But why don't you look it up for us?

Oh, yeah, right, OK.

Oh, there it is right there.

"Vestigial structures are inherited from ancestors but have lost much or all of their original function due to different selection pressures acting on the descendant." JOHN: So they're saying that animals and people have leftovers in their bodies that once served a function in our evolutionary ancestors?

Hey, just like the parts for my car.

Exactly.

The example they give here is the dolphin's hip bones.

They're saying its ancestor used to walk on land.

But once the dolphin evolved to live in water, it has useless leftover hip bones.

JANE: What's funny is scientists recently discovered that marine animals, like whales, need these bones during mating season.

The study was published in a 2014 article in the science journal "Evolution." The name of the journal is "Evolution." Yep.

JOHN: The one that claims they've discovered a purpose for these bones, which goes against the whole idea that these bones are mere evolutionary leftovers.

That there is the definition of irony, isn't it.

So in the textbook, they call them useless.

But in reality, these bones help the dolphin reproduce and survive.

Exactly.

And they say the same thing about humans.

That we have dolphin hips?

Not exactly, but close.

They point out that our coccyx, the tail bone, is left over from when we had tails.

They think we used to have tails?

Yeah, but it's just the end of our backbone.

I mean, it has to end somewhere, right.

JOHN: True.

It's also the anchor for a bunch of muscles, right?

JANE: Yes, tiny muscles, tendons, and ligaments connect to it.

And it supports something called the pelvic diaphragm.

This whole system holds a bunch of muscles and organs in place, like the bladder.

So what other things do they say are leftovers?

The tonsils.

Of course, lots of people had their tonsils removed, a great way to get ice cream for dinner.

You'd seriously let them cut out your tonsils just so you can have ice cream?

Well, it depends on what kind of ice cream we're talking about here.

OK, not really, but people survive just fine without tonsils, right?

Uh, studies now show that, in some cases, removing your tonsils can be worse in the long run and especially for young children.

So what's their purpose?

JANE: Tonsils are placed at the back of the throat so they trap germs when we breathe.

Proteins called antibodies, produced by immune cells in the tonsils, help kill germs and prevent throat and lung infections.

They actually manufacture antibodies against disease.

They're basically the first line of defense against inhaled or ingested viruses.

So what about the appendix?

It's thought to be vestigial, right.

I'm not even sure I know what it is.

JANE: It's a tube-shaped sack attached to the lower end of the large intestine.

It's part of your digestive system, and-- OK, enough said.

But they also have purpose?

JANE: Yes, it's the storehouse for beneficial bacteria.

When you fight an intestinal disease, your body gets rid of bacteria, both good and bad.

But then the appendix can quickly resupply your system with good bacteria.

Sounds pretty helpful.

Yep, it also plays a role in our body's immune system, especially when we're younger.

Sounds pretty important.

JANE: Charles Darwin thought vestigial structures were a winning argument for evolution.

And he believed there were lots of vestigial structures?

Yeah, and a German anatomist by the name of Robert Wiedersheim made a list of 86 vestigial structures in the human body.

And later, evolutionists expanded the list to about 180.

But modern science has now shown that every one of them has a purpose.

So they didn't know about these organs' functions in the body.

JANE: No, they assumed that since people could survive without them that these were totally useless.

Then they reasoned in a circle, arguing that since they were useless leftovers of an evolutionary past, they demonstrate our evolutionary past.

So reasoning in a circle is bad.

Uh, yeah.

It's when we assume our conclusion then use that assumption to prove our conclusion.

It's crazy.

So what do modern evolutionists say about these organs now that science has discovered that every one of them have functions after all?

JANE: They now claim that vestigial organs can have functions after all.

And those functions may have evolved after the organ spent time being useless.

JOHN: Wow, talk about imagination.

It's kind of sad that they think we're made up of useless parts, instead of acknowledging the design by Jesus, the creator.

It kind of reminds me of Psalm 139:14.

JANE: Yeah, yeah, it says, "I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well." God has a purpose for everything, even if we are unsure of what it is.

I guess that could be true of my leftover box of parts, huh?

Uh, yeah.

By the way, this is the air cleaner that filters air going to the engine.

The EGR valve regulates exhaust, and the EVAP canister prevents gas from leaking into the atmosphere.

Whoa, you know about all this stuff?

My dad's a mechanic.

OK, well, um, can you show me where they go?

Uh, sure.

All right.

One last thought, the fact that evolutionists can't find any useless organs really destroys the idea that we're made up of spare parts.

Yeah.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it.

Is it just me, or does it seem like the fossil record strikes out when it comes to evolution?

Practicing for the big game this weekend?

Yep.

You're looking pretty good.

Oh, thanks.

JOHN: Yeah, just remember, keep your eye on the ball, and your swing will just naturally follow through.

Thanks, good advice.

So what are you up to?

Well, I need to practice for the speech and debate tournament this weekend.

Oh, yeah, the big debate over the fossil record.

Yeah.

You could say I'm a little nervous.

Eh, you'll do great.

It's just like baseball, keep your eye on the topic and your presentation will naturally follow-- Oh.

John?

Oh, John, John, John, John, John, John.

Oh, gosh, I killed him.

No, John, are you OK?

ANNOUNCER: Ladies and gentlemen, it's been quite a game so far.

There's two outs.

And it appears that Jane's up for Team Evolution.

JOHN: You ready?

Yep.

I'm going to knock this one over the fence as I take a swing at it with ancestral forms.

What do you mean by that?

JANE: Evolution predicts that we should have fossils of the simplest creatures at the bottom of the rock layers, showing a time when life supposedly started evolving on Earth.

OK, you ready?

Let her rip.

ANNOUNCER: Strike one.

Wow, uh, what kind of pitch was that?

Nothing special.

It's just that some of the lowest rock layers with fossils, called Cambrian, reveal incredibly complicated creatures right at the start.

If evolution were true, we would expect to see single-celled organisms down there, then basic looking multicelled creatures above them.

Instead, we see Cambrian layers full of very complex sea creatures with no clear ancestors in the lower rocks.

The Cambrian presents a dramatic explosion in animal varieties, including an example from every one of today's major groups, plus more besides.

Look at this trilobite, for example.

Its vision system was more complicated than yours or mine.

Each eye had over 15,000 individual lenses.

So there are no simple creatures gradually leading up to them?

Sorry, they just appear suddenly in the layers.

OK, well, you got me with that one.

But I'm going to nail it with this one.

I'm swinging with transitional fossils this time.

OK.

Here comes the pitch.

ANNOUNCER: Strike two.

Whoa, that flew by.

What kind of a pitch was that?

I used my fastball since you're trying to pull a fast one.

The expected transitional fossils are missing.

What?

Can I have a talk with you?

Time out.

ANNOUNCER: Time out.

Is there an echo in here?

ANNOUNCER: Is there an echo in here?

Oh, sorry.

OK, what do you mean there are no transitional fossils?

JOHN: Well, in Charles Darwin's book, "On the Origin of Species," he wrote, "Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?" Darwin saw a problem?

Yeah, and he hoped future fossil digs would reveal the transitional forms.

Since then, for more than 150 years, mankind has been collecting fossils.

We have over 200 million in museums.

So in other words, most animals that have lived on Earth have been fossilized and discovered.

Right, and if evolution were true, we should have millions of fossils that show us the evolution between all these animals since evolution is a gradual process.

But in our high school textbooks, they show some transitional fossils.

[LOUD CLICK] How did you do that?

Dream sequence.

Well, in that case-- [LOUD CLICK] Not bad.

Look right here.

In both of these textbooks, they show pictures of the Archaeopteryx fossil, supposedly half dinosaur and half bird.

Yeah, it was discovered in 1861.

Alan Feduccia, a paleontologist who led studies in the origins of birds, said this back in 1993.

"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur.

But it's not.

It's a bird, a perching bird.

And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that." Since making that statement, there has been a constant battle in the evolutionary camp about whether Archaeopteryx should be even considered an ancestor to birds.

And many are making the case that it should be thrown out of the evolutionary line-up, going from being a bird to a dinosaur and then back to a bird.

Archaeopteryx was even further disqualified as an evolutionary ancestor for birds when scientists found what appears to be a crow-sized bird and extinct four-winged birds in rock layers designated to be below those containing Archaeopteryx.

Talk about throwing a wild pitch.

Wild pitches happen often in the game of evolution, like the fossil called Tiktaalik.

It quickly became the missing link between fish and four-legged creatures that first walked on land.

Oh, yeah, I heard of that.

It was kind of the star of transitional fossils.

But then in 2010, scientists announced in the journal "Nature" that they had found footprints of a four-legged land creature in Poland that are supposedly 10 million years older than Tiktaalik.

So there goes Tiktaalik as a clear transitional fossil.

And yet here it is still in our textbook.

Like I said, there should be millions of transitional fossils.

So if evolutionary theory can only suggest a few, and those few have major problems, it discredits the theory.

OK, so that last one was definitely a strike.

But I'm ready for one more pitch.

What are you swinging with this time?

JANE: Evolution theory holds that Darwin's evolution tree started simple and then branched out to all the amazing animals we have today.

OK.

I guess you can give it a try.

Yes, I can.

ANNOUNCER: Strike three, evolution has struck out.

Oh, shut it.

ANNOUNCER: Batter out.

That was a curveball Yep, we see that there are many more kinds of animals than we have today.

JANE: And many of those went extinct.

JOHN: Opposite of evolution.

OK, well, you're up to bat.

I'm going to slug it out of the park with the fossil record confirms a world wide flood.

JANE: Ready?

[CRACK OF THE BAT] [CHEERING] ANNOUNCER: Wow, it's going.

It's going.

It may be over the fence.

Yes, home run Creation.

Wow, the idea that the fossil record shows a worldwide flood was a home run.

Yeah, fossil graveyards containing animals from land, sea, and air are all jumbled together.

And in many cases, the destruction was so powerful that fossilized creatures were ripped apart and very quickly in mud.

And 95% of the entire record is marine fossils buried mostly in land rocks, not ocean bottom sediments.

Many layers that contain fossils are so large that they search over many states and sometimes cross continents.

That definitely sounds like a lot of water.

Water, a lot of water, too much water.

[SPLASH] Oh.

Really?

I was dreaming.

I was pitching for Creation.

You were batting for evolution.

OK, that's it.

If I was batting for evolution, that means I'm calling a doctor.

No, no, no, I, I'm OK.

So you dreamed that evolution lost the game?

Yeah, no, the fossil record didn't support it.

But the evidence was in line with the Biblical flood.

JANE: "And behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and everything that is in the earth shall die," Genesis 6:17.

And Genesis 7:19 through 20 says, "And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered.

The waters prevailed 15 cubits upward, and the mountains were covered." So after 150 years, Darwin's theory still hasn't been proven true.

Hm mm.

So I guess when it comes to the fossil record, evolution strikes out.

[THUD] I'm calling the doctor.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it.

Is it just me or is dating rocks not all it's cracked up to be?

[TAPPING FINGERNAILS] He's late, again.

Sorry I am late, Jane.

No problem.

Oh, you've been jogging?

Yeah, I'm trying to get down to weight for the wrestling match this weekend.

OK, well, we'd better get studying.

I've got one more thing to do.

I've got to weigh in.

JANE: Right now?

Yes, right now.

I've got to get down below 230 before this weekend.

Otherwise, I'll get kicked up to the next weight division and have to face Jimmy "the Python" Peretti.

JANE: Jimmy the Python?

Yeah, he got his nickname after he squeezed a kid so hard that he was crawling to class for three days.

Oh, yeah, I think I remember that.

Poor kid.

All right.

Now, don't drink the water.

You'll add water weight.

Oh no, I'll be fine.

Oh no.

What's wrong?

245, 245.

Oh.

Do you know what that means?

Dah, you know what, you'll be able to get down.

Do not worry about it.

By Saturday?

Jimmy the Python, here I come.

I'm sorry, John.

Hey, you know, maybe if you just grease yourself down, you'll just slip right out of his hands.

That's OK.

Let's just get back to studying so I can go workout.

You sure?

Yeah.

OK.

You know, I've been doing a little healthy eating myself.

Well, if you want to get on the scale, be my guest.

In front of you?

I don't think so.

JOHN: All right, all right, just offering.

Hm mm.

[PHONE RINGING] Phone call.

I gotta take this one.

Hello, this is John.

Sorry about that.

We're working on radiometric dating, right.

Yep, yep, yeah, hm mm, radiometric dating.

Jane?

Oh, yeah, sure.

I've noticed this is one of the most heated battles, this whole dating issue.

Well, that's because time is at the foundation for everything evolutionary theory teaches.

Look, just read this section right here.

JANE: "Evolution takes a long time.

If life has evolved, then Earth must be very" fat.

I mean, "old." Yeah, yeah, it says "old." OK.

And down here.

Huh, oh, yeah, yeah.

"Geologists now use radioactivity to establish the age of certain rocks and fossils.

This kind of data could have shown that the earth is young." JOHN: "If that had happened, Darwin's ideas would have been refuted and abandoned.

Instead, radioactive dating indicates the earth is about 4.5 billion years old, plenty of time for evolution and natural selection to take place." Wow.

It seems that the foundation of evolutionary theory sure depends on radiometric dating.

Radiometric dating is used to support the belief that millions of years exist for evolution to happen.

Yep.

And like they said, the entire age of the earth rests upon radiometric dating.

It sure seems that they're putting a lot of faith in something that they can't actually test through direct observation.

After all, plenty of assumptions go into these calculations.

If it were to be disproved, their whole worldview would seem to collapse.

Without billions of years, you can't have biological evolution or geological evolution on Earth.

Pretty epic, eh.

So based on their dating methods, they've come up with an age for each section of the geologic column that we find on the very next page.

JANE: And based on that, they determine the age of the earth to be about 4.5 billion years old.

JOHN: Actually, the age of the earth is based on the dating of certain meteorites.

They assume these meteorites formed at the same time as the earth, and that dating the meteorites will give us the age of the earth.

With that as a start, they then construct the ages of the layers in the column based primarily on the layers of volcanic ash and igneous rock.

Cookie?

I'm not going to be-- JANE: Thanks.

So for the test, could you remind me about how radiometric dating works?

Sure.

Can you hand me my water bottle?

Wow, this thing's still half frozen.

Hm mm.

Now pretend the water bottle is a rock.

Jane, what are you doing?

Pretending it's a rock.

OK, well, rocks contain radioactive material called the parent element, or isotope, which decays into a non-radioactive stable product known as the daughter element, or isotope.

OK, I remember now.

So it's like the ice that slowly melts into the water.

JOHN: Yeah.

And in the biology book, there's a chart here that shows Potassium-40 decaying into Argon-40.

JANE: OK, I see.

So based on how we can measure it today, we assume that every 1.3 billion years the amount of Potassium-40 decreases by half.

Right, a radioactive half-life.

So when they discover a rock, they can measure the amount of parent material and the amount of daughter product, and using a chart like this, determine how old it is.

So what's wrong with this method?

Well, methods measure only the amounts of isotopes in the rock.

This is good science because it is observable and repeatable.

It just gives the ratio of one element to another.

But the age is an interpretation of those measurements, not an observation.

And that interpretation assumes answers to all kinds of untested questions.

What if the rock already had a daughter isotope in it from the very beginning?

Or what if the rock gets contaminated?

Or what if the rate of decay was rattled at some point in the past?

What was the original ratio of parent to daughter isotope?

One must assume no parent or daughter material was added or removed from the rock, and that the rate of decay has always been constant over millions and millions of years.

Are those assumptions wrong?

I mean, if you start with false assumptions, you could get really bad dates.

Well, many scientists think they are.

And our textbooks don't even tell us about all the assumptions required to date the rock.

But the most convincing evidence is all the crazy dates they get with radioisotope methods.

I wonder if our teacher even knows all the assumptions behind radiometric dating.

To be fair, there are lots of dates that agree with one another.

But there are many examples of different mineral components of a rock giving very different radiometric dates.

And very often, different isotope systems give different ages for the same rock.

So how can which one is the right age, if any?

And then there are rocks we know the age of, where we watched it cool from lava that give radically older dates.

Really?

Yeah.

A lava flow in a volcano of the North Island of New Zealand that happened in 1954 was dated to be 3.5 million years old.

Wow, that's really off.

JOHN: A volcanic bomb that blew out of Mt.

Stromboli in Italy in 1963 was dated at 2.4 million years old.

And that dated much older than it really was.

JOHN: A 10-year-old rock from Mount St. Helens' lava dome dated to 350,000 years and older.

JANE: If we can't trust radiometric dating on rocks that we can see formed, then how can we trust radiometric dating on rocks that we can see formed, rocks that supposedly formed a million years ago.

I know, right.

And there are so many other examples.

Check this out.

Aha.

OK.

What's this?

You carry rocks in your backpack while you're jogging?

Hey, hardcore.

OK, this rock was taken from the Ono formation near Redding, California, where millions of sea fossils have been found.

This lower Cretaceous rock is supposed to be about 112 million years old.

But the marine fossil stuck inside the mud rock, an ammonite, showed 36,000 radiocarbon years.

How can a rock be 120 million years old if it holds a fossil of only 36,000 years using a different method.

I wonder if either date is meaningful.

It seems kind of suspicious to me.

The evidence isn't seeming too rock solid.

Hm, funny.

Let me see your diamond ring.

You mean my purity ring?

It's got a diamond on it, doesn't it.

Sure, I mean, aren't they brilliant?

Hey, at the jewelry store, the sign said diamonds take billions of years to form deep beneath the earth.

I doubt that.

Researchers find Carbon-14 in diamonds.

Why is that important?

Radiocarbon decays quickly.

It has a half-life of only about 5,730 years.

So its maximum shelf life is only about 100,000 years before it becomes undetectable.

And it might be impossible to contaminate an old diamond with young carbon.

JANE: Wow, so those diamonds must be younger than they think.

So here's the real question.

Why aren't any of these examples in our textbook?

Well, I should get back to working out, and-- what?

This scale is reading an extra 15 pounds on it.

What?

This scale is evil.

Calm down.

It just wasn't calibrated, OK, see.

OK.

All right, 229, safe.

Hey, that's kind of like radiometric dating.

Maybe everyone's been trusting that it's accurate, but it's been giving them false numbers.

With all the overwhelming evidence that it doesn't work consistently, I'm surprised that they present it with such confidence in our textbooks.

Jane, it goes back to the original quote we read in the book.

If they're wrong about dating rocks, then the entire evolutionary theory crumbles to pieces.

That's true.

None of us were there to verify the assumptions.

JOHN: But God has provided a written account of history.

And if you tally up all the chronologies and time cues in the Bible, the earth is about 6,000 years old.

So we trust God's word instead of man's fallible dating methods.

It's like it says in Job 38:4, "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Tell me if you have understanding." It's like God saying, you weren't there.

Kind of makes you think, doesn't it.

Is it just me or can things that evolutionists claim take long amounts of time actually happen very quickly?

Hm, there good as new.

Jane, Jane, I got the new case.

I got the heavy duty one, the heaviest duty one on the market.

You could roll a truck over this baby.

I've always wanted to do this.

[CRASHING SOUND] Hadn't put it on yet.

Had not put it on yet.

Oh, no.

Oh, no.

Oh, you didn't-- oops.

JOHN: Oh, man, what normal person throws a phone?

Well, I never said I was normal.

OK, I'm so sorry.

Call me now, guys.

Well, you know, I'm not like upset, upset.

I was expecting a call from the scholarship board today.

The process takes months, and if they can't contact me, it's just going to be that much longer.

We can do this.

We can fix this.

We just have to put the pieces back on the screen.

And then use this shipping tape to put it all back together.

Not going to work.

Yes, it will.

Yes, it will.

Who knew a phone could shatter so completely?

This is a nightmare.

No, it isn't.

No, look, we can do this.

We can do this.

We almost got it done.

See, look, oh, here's Australia.

Huh.

OK, look, that can go there.

And then look, we already have Africa.

JOHN: North America.

JANE: Yes, see, now, look, soon enough, we'll have Pangea, and then your phone will be able to work.

Pangea?

You mean the supercontinent?

Yeah, I was just reading about it for this week's homework.

Let's see, it was page 162.

Now, right here, they believe all the continents were together to form Pangea 225 million years ago.

But not everyone agrees, right.

True.

Thousands of scientists believe in fast continental sprint rather than slow continental drift.

One famous scientist by the name of Dr. John Baumgardner created a computer model for plate tectonics that thousands of geophysicists use to investigate earth processes.

His model has given us an understanding of how the continents split apart thousands, not millions of years ago.

Oh, yeah, isn't he the creator of "Terra?" Yep.

In 1997, the "US News and World Report" reported "Terra" was created by a Los Alamos lab scientist, the world's preeminent expert in the design of computer models for geophysical convection.

The process by which the earth creates volcanoes, earthquakes, and the movement of the continental plate.

Didn't he show that they can also move very quickly?

Right.

But because the theory of evolution takes a long period of time to supposedly happen, many only accept uniformitarian ideas.

Uniforma who?

Oh, defines over here.

"Geologists make inferences based on the principle of uniformitarianism.

This principle states that the same processes that operate today operated in the past." JOHN: So they can determine the rate at which a river is currently cutting through a canyon, and then use that to determine how old it is?

Correct.

But what this principle refuses to take into account is the major catastrophic events of the past.

Even many evolutionary geologists are starting to recognize the importance of regional catastrophes in understanding the geologic features on Earth.

[PHONE RINGING] Ooh.

I think this might be the scholarship board.

Quick, hand me South America.

Here.

All right.

Here we go.

Ready?

Done, go.

Please work, please work.

Hello?

MAN ON PHONE: Yes, I was calling to let you know your hearing aids are in.

What?

MAN ON PHONE: I said your hearing aids are in.

You've got the wrong number.

So I'm guessing that wasn't the scholarship board?

No, I probably missed their call.

Now, I'm not going to hear back from them for weeks or months.

Well, at least your phone works.

OK.

So our textbooks say that rock layers take a long time to form.

Have you heard about Mt.

St. Helens?

Yeah.

OK, well, during the 1980s eruptions at Mount St. Helens, 200 layers of rock were deposited in three hours.

Entire river systems were carved in a matter of months, right through 700 feet of hard rock.

Examples like this caused geologists to rethink some of their previous ideas and give Biblical creationists great models for the flood of Noah's day.

So imagine what a worldwide flood would do?

Exactly.

So here it says, "These rock layers in the Grand Canyon were laid down over millions of years and were then slowly washed away by the river, forming a channel." That's uniformitarian thinking, isn't it.

Yep.

If these rock layers took millions of years to form, then the bottom rock layers would be hard and brittle by the time the ones at the top would be deposited.

But near Grand Canyon, all of the layers are bent together.

If they were bent together while they were hard, snap.

The rocks didn't shatter like they should have.

They must have been bent together while they were soft and pliable, the whole stack.

That means they were all deposited at about the same time, not over millions of years.

So what about the canyon itself?

Well, if the river slowly carved the canyon, then we should see all the material piled up in a river delta.

But it's completely missing.

In fact, about 1,000 cubic miles has been eroded to form the Grand Canyon.

Where did it all go?

If the canyon was slowly eroded by the Colorado River, an enormous delta should be found at the mouth of the river where it empties into the Gulf of California.

But the delta only contains about 1% of the eroded material we would expect if the evolutionary explanation were true.

Unless it was carved by a massive catastrophe, which carried all the material away.

That's what I think.

Check out what it says about fossils in our biology book.

"Even if an organism lives in an environment where fossils can form, the chances are slim that its dead body will be buried in sediment before it decays." So animals have to be quickly buried in sediment so its cells can be preserved and then replaced by the surrounding minerals.

OK, so check out this fossilized clam.

You have fossilized clams in your purse.

Yeah, they hurt in my pocket.

Anyway, so what happens to a clam when it dies?

No more homework?

No, they open up and their two shells separate.

But this clam was fossilized before it had a chance to fall open or be pulled open by a scavenger.

They've also found fossils of a fish coming out of another's mouth.

How quickly did that get fossilized?

JOHN: Not fast enough.

JANE: Or what about a marine reptile caught giving birth?

Awkward.

JANE: Yeah.

And they found many dinosaur bones with red blood cells, soft tissue, proteins, and even DNA.

How quickly would that have to be buried before it deteriorated?

JOHN: And have it last for 70 million years, there's no way.

JANE: But all of these could have been fossilized during the worldwide flood.

JOHN: Right, Noah's flood would create many of the rock layers that stretch over entire continents and bury millions of creatures for us to find as fossils today.

It doesn't take millions of years to form fossils.

It can happen rapidly under the right conditions.

I guess it all comes down to what it says in II Peter, chapter 3, that "Scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming?' For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.

For this they will willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water." They deny the worldwide flood.

[PHONE RINGING] Ahem.

Yes, this is John.

Really?

Really?

Really.

All right, well, thank you very much.

Yeah, I'll talk to you then.

Guess who that was.

That was the scholarship board.

Did that go well?

Yes.

Yes.

I got the scholarship.

I thought I was going to have months of paperwork, and I just got it, just like that.

Oh, congratulations, John.

Yeah, I guess things you think are going to take a really long time can sometimes happen very rapidly.

Yep, kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

Is it just me, or does a 100-pound wolf-like creature turning into a 360,000-pound blue whale seem a little hard to believe?

JOHN: Who's got you covered?

Oh, you got burgers.

Oh, man, I love you.

Yeah, well, I figured that since we're going to be studying anyways.

Oh, yeah, pretty much.

All right, let's see what you got here.

Oh.

We've got the old macaroni fries.

Oh, we've got some burgers.

Silverware, for burgers?

I don't know.

The girl who was giving all this stuff out was like a zombie.

[MOANING] So you know what's going to be on this test, right?

Yeah, whale evolution.

Can you imagine what it would take for a wolf-like creature to turn into a whale?

The little tail would have to turn into a gigantic fluke.

And the forelimbs would have to turn into flippers.

They would need to evolve a brand new respiratory system.

I mean, that's not easy.

And then they would have to evolve a blowhole.

And then their teeth would have to evolve into baleen.

And that's not all.

Wow, there are way too many changes that would have to be made.

Including growing several hundred times bigger.

Yeah, like Aunt Madge during Christmas.

Yeah, so we're going to have to study.

I mean, if we don't, this test is going to be an epic fail.

Hey, you know what I'm thinking.

That we are really living on a snowflake in Whoville.

No.

But cramming all these facts into our heads makes me feel like we're some sort of contestants on "Jeopardy." [MUSIC PLAYING - "THEME FROM  JEOPARDY"] Welcome to "Evolutionary Jeopardy," the game where you never know how things will turn out.

Jane, pick your category.

JANE: Hm, I'm going to go for Whale of a Tale for $500.

OK.

This category focuses on different animals that supposedly evolved into modern whales.

From the high school biology textbook, we see the first animal believed to begin evolving into whales.

It says, "Mesonychids are one hypothesized link between modern whales and certain hoofed mammals." [BUZZER] Oh, what is the imagined category of animals that includes sheep, camels, pigs, cows, deer, and wolves, thought to be the possible ancestors of whales.

[BELL RINGS] That is correct.

Wait, the entire evolutionary ancestry of whales is based on an imaginary creature?

Yeah.

That's true.

Jane?

OK, um, let's see here.

Oh, I know, I'm going to go with Howling for the Sea for $1,000.

JEOPARDY HOST: Your biology textbook also shows a diagram of a whale evolving.

It depicts the next creature in the lineup, which was discovered in the 1980s.

They only discovered partial fragments of the wolf-like skull.

And since they didn't have the rest of the body, they imagined that it was an intermediate between a land animal and a whale.

And textbooks included illustrations of it swimming in the ocean.

But then more fossils were discovered showing it to be nothing more than a land animal.

[INSECT BUZZING] Yet it still appears in your textbook as an ancestor of the whale.

[BUZZER] Yes, Jane.

Oh, huh, there was a fly on my buzzer.

Sorry, that was not stated as a question.

[CROWD SIGHS] [BUZZER] John?

What is Pakicetus?

[BELL RINGS] JEOPARDY HOST: Correct.

[CROWD CHEERS] JEOPARDY HOST: Your pick, John.

JOHN: Same category.

[WHIRLING SOUND] JEOPARDY HOST: It's time for the Daily Double.

[KNOCKING] If you answer this right, John, you'll get double the amount.

There are only two fossils ever found of this next creature on your chart.

In your biology textbook, it says, the limb structure of this creature called "walking whale" suggests that these animals could both swim in shallow water and walk on land.

However, it appears to be nothing more than a land animal.

In other words, it was defined as a walking whale, not because it had a whale's tail or flippers or a blow hole, but simply because they believed it to be.

In fact, they didn't even find the part of the skull that would have a blow hole.

But they still had a blow hole in museum drawings.

And since it was a land animal with four legs, it was then called a walking whale.

[BUZZER] What is Ambulocetus?

[BELL RINGS] JEOPARDY HOST: You are correct.

Well, that's some serious circular reasoning.

John.

JOHN: I'll go with Whale of a Tale for $3,000.

JEOPARDY HOST: This creature's often depicted in museum and textbooks with a tail fluke.

However, they never found the fossil bones for their tail.

Also this creature was often portrayed with front flippers until they found fossils to show it actually had front legs.

[BUZZER] What is Rodhocetus?

[BELL RINGS] Correct.

[HUMMING] Hey, hey, this is my thought bubble.

Who cares?

[CROWD SIGHS] [CROWD BOOS] Moving on, this creature seems to be nothing more than an extinct sea creature.

What appears to be left-over legs from evolution actually turns out to be claspers used during mating season.

This is true in many current species of whales.

[BUZZER] What is Basilosaurus?

[BELL RINGS] Yes.

[HUMMING] Last one.

This creature appears to be nothing more than an extinct whale.

[BUZZER] What is Dorudon?

[BELL RINGS] JEOPARDY HOST: Excellent.

And the last of the remaining names, Mysticetes and Odontocetes, are just modern whales, baleen and tooth whales, respectively.

Well, John, it looks like you've won.

Woo!

You've won our grand prize.

It's a-- New car?

No, a cold hamburger.

Heh.

What, a cold hamburger?

A cold hamburger, John, a cold hamburger.

Hamburger, John.

John, hello?

John, your burger's getting cold.

What's up with the silverware?

Your perfectionism kicking in again?

Ha ha ha, no.

No, these are arranged in an evolutionary story.

See we start with the knife that eventually evolves a round end to become a spoon.

And then over time, some notches form into it.

And it becomes a spork, and eventually, a fork.

I believe a spork may actually be a transitional fossil.

It's just not right.

I know what you mean.

You can spear a salad.

And soup just drizzles through.

Drizzles through.

Well, anyway, I think your problem is that each of these utensils is designed for a very specific purpose.

Exactly.

And just like the whale chart, each of these animals were created by God to be exactly what it is.

And Genesis 1:21 says, "So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind.

And God saw that it was good." So when you line up a theoretical ancestor, a couple of extinct land animals, an extinct sea creature, an extinct whale, and a couple of modern whales, you can tell a pretty good story about how a 100-pound wolf-like creature turned into a 360,000-pound blue whale.

But it don't make it true.

Sure, kind of makes you think, doesn't it.

Is it just me, or is it impossible to line up animals and the way they evolved?

What's wrong, Jane?

I had the weirdest experience last night.

Was your dog wearing lipstick again?

Yes, but that's not the point.

I went to my friend Carrie's house.

JOHN: Oh, that is weird.

No, see, that's not the part.

It's that she's living in my house.

Does your mom know?

No, I mean her house looks just like mine.

Our doors are alike.

Maybe it's a parallel universe and Carrie's your alternate?

Maybe.

And you know what, I went inside and I went into the living room.

And it's the exact same shape and size as mine.

Even the stairs are in the exact same place.

And the stairs were going up in exactly the same way.

At the top was a hallway, and there were two bedrooms straight ahead.

You didn't go in, did you?

Yes.

And Carrie's room was to the right with her bed under the exact same window.

And let me guess, on top of the bed was a bear.

It was such a freaky experience.

Jane, it's because you live in tract housing.

Heh?

They only make a few different house plans that they repeat throughout the whole neighborhood.

OK, I never knew that.

Yeah, it reminds me of homologous structures.

Of course, me, too.

What are you talking about?

Sorry, I was just studying it in our textbook.

So what's the term "homo" mean?

JANE: "Homo" is Greek for "same." JOHN: Right.

And "logous" means "relation," so homologous means having the same relation.

JANE: And that was in our textbook?

Yeah, no, it says right here in the biology book-- gracias.

De nada.

Here.

"Homologous structures are structures that share a common ancestry.

That is, a similar structure in two organisms can be found in the common ancestor of the organisms." Heh heh, I'm not sure I got all that.

Which part?

Well, all of it.

OK, look at the diagram.

JANE: So they say that penguin, alligator, bat, and human all evolved from a common vertebrate ancestor because they have similar bones in their forelimbs.

That's quite a family.

So imagine the job evolutionists have.

They must take the entire animal kingdom and try to determine which creatures evolved from others.

OK, so they look for these homologous structures to show an evolutionary relationship.

You got it.

And they would look convincing, but look at the definition of homologous.

JANE: "Homologous structures are structures that share a common ancestry." Sometimes we see structures with similar functions in creatures that don't come from a supposed common ancestor.

Got an example?

I do, a human and a squid eye.

JANE: What?

JOHN: Both humans and squid have a lens that projects an image onto a retina.

The problem is that evolutionary theory holds that the closest ancestor to both didn't have eyes, but only a patch of light-sensitive skin cells.

That means that a very similar eye had to evolve twice, completely independent from each other.

They call this convergent evolution and believe that the same process of random mutations happening over millions of years built similar structures.

JANE: No way.

An eye's so amazing, it seems impossible that it could have evolved in the first place.

But now they believe it happened twice?

JOHN: Yep, that would be impossible times two.

Are there other examples of similar-looking organs that don't fit evolutionary trees?

Oh, yeah, lots.

Think about flight, man with all his intelligence just figured out how to fly less than 200 years ago.

But flight supposedly evolved at least four different times, birds, insects, mammals, like bats, and reptilian flight, like pterodactyls.

Now that makes it four times impossible.

So going back to the human and squid eye, would they be called a homologous structure since they look similar?

JOHN: Nope.

When similar structures are found on creatures that aren't considered closely related, they are called convergent.

So they evolved completely independent from each other?

Yeah.

Evolution supposedly built the same basic organ more than one time.

But it sounds more like a rescuing device, you know, like a make-believe story than a scientific concept.

So how do you know the difference between when similar structures are homologous and when they're analogous?

I'm not sure.

Um, it says here, "Homologous structures are structures that share a common ancestry." But how can anyone be sure that structures actually shared a common ancestry?

When similarities fit evolution, there are homologous structures.

But when they don't fit, they claim the structure evolved more than once?

Wow, that's circular reasoning.

JOHN: How so?

JANE: The evolutionary theory decides what is homologous.

And then they say homologous structures prove evolution.

Hey, that's right.

That's really messed up.

So how do creationists explain similar structures?

Simple, they share the same master designer, God.

God built similarly-designed features into his creatures, making sure each feature was precisely tailored to fit that creature's systems.

It's like airplanes, skateboards, cars, and motorcycles.

They all need wheels and tires, but designers made them different to tailor them to each vehicle's unique specifications.

It's also like the similarities between yours and Carrie's house.

They were designed by the same architect for the same purpose.

That sounds like Nehemiah, chapter 9, verse 6.

"You alone are the Lord; You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their hosts, the earth and everything on it, the seas and all that is in them, and you preserve them all.

The host of heaven worships You." So similar structures point back to a creative and intelligent God, not to the circular reasoning or random coincidences of evolution.

JANE: Kind of makes you think, doesn't it.

Is it just me, or is the explanation for mass extinctions kind of missing the explanation part?

Hey, John.

Hm.

What you doing?

Oh, I'm just looking at this picture of a dodo bird.

They're totally awesome.

OK.

That's random.

You know they're extinct, right.

Yes, I know they're extinct.

Just they get so little respect.

Are you defending them?

Maybe.

I'm just tired of everybody beating up on the little guy.

What do you mean?

Well, they went extinct.

And now everyone just wants to make fun of how stupid they were.

You're going to start a fan club or something?

I already have.

I shouldn't have asked.

Soon, I'll have caps, pens, paper weights, all sorts of official name-brand dodo products.

It's going to be big.

Right.

Somehow I feel that this is all going to go the way of the dodo bird.

Do you see what you just did there?

You instantly connected failure to the dodo bird.

OK, sorry.

I just didn't realize this was such a passion of yours.

Nah, it-- well, honestly, it just got me thinking about extinction.

You know, I already started reading about that.

Many evolutionists believe there are probably five different massive extinctions in Earth's history.

You can see them right here.

They date these extinctions by where they believe they see them in the geologic column.

So the most famous one is the huge asteroid, right.

JANE: Yeah, right here it says, "evidence shows that at the end of the Cretaceous Period, a huge asteroid crashed into Earth." And then, "about that same time, dinosaurs and many other species went extinct." About that time?

Uh, well, this theory's had some problems.

First, some scientists dated the dinosaur extinction 300,000 years after they say the asteroid hit.

Huh, little delayed action there.

Another study suggested that the asteroid was too wimpy to cause the mass extinction.

Another team claims that they found dinosaur fossils that lived past the impact.

So it's far from settled.

Is the same thing true for other mass extinctions?

Right here, it says, "Until recently researchers looked for a single cause for each mass extinction." Then it continues.

"Many mass extinctions, however, were probably caused by several factors, working in combination: volcanic eruptions, moving continents, and changing sea levels." You mean, they only have several different ideas about what caused mass extinctions?

Right.

But they've just listed everything that will be taking place during the worldwide flood.

Wow, you're right.

You know Genesis 7:23 says, "So He destroyed all living things which were on the face of the ground: both man and cattle, creeping thing bird of the air.

They were destroyed from the earth.

Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark remained alive." This fits perfectly with all the massive fossil graveyards we find all around the world.

For example, at the Lance Great formation in Wyoming, we found lots of species of dinosaurs, mixed with birds, fish, crocodiles, lizards, snakes, turtles, frogs, salamanders, and small mammals, all laid down by water catastrophe in sedimentary layers.

You know, I've heard that almost every dinosaur graveyard in the world shows fossils deposited by or in watery mud or sand.

And even more incredible, many dinosaur fossils are found in a classic death pose, with their necks arched back.

Exactly.

So if you take their geologic column and squeeze it down into one event, the worldwide flood.

That does better explain what we see.

Right, and there's a lot of volcanic material mixed into these layers.

Vast amounts of molten material entered the ocean.

That's what makes up sea floors around the world.

And that relates to the Ice Age.

Storm-tracking models show that warm oceans would cause severe storms and lead to massive snowfall.

JOHN: Wait, you're saying hotter oceans make colder continents?

Sounds weird.

Weird, but true.

Today's snowstorms began as ocean water.

Hotter water increases evaporation.

Plus volcanic dust and debris would have blocked out the sun during the summer.

So the fallen snow would not have melted.

Now that makes sense.

And I can see how the flood connects to the Ice Age.

But why do you think volcanoes were part of the flood?

It was just 40 days of rain, right.

JANE: The rain didn't begin until after the fountains of the great deep burst forth, according to Genesis 7:11, meaning that molten material plus water came up through Earth's crust.

Most of what comes out of today's volcano is still water as steam.

OK, so that explains one Ice Age.

Weren't there like four or five?

Well, evolutionists don't have a satisfactory explanation for one Ice Age, let alone four or five.

But the Flood gives enough calamity in a short amount of time to actually make an Ice Age.

There was only one that happened a few hundred years after the Flood.

Which would explain many of the Ice Age fossils we find near the surface of the earth, not deep down in the flood layers.

JANE: Like saber-tooth cats.

JOHN: And woolly mammoths.

And Hyracotherium.

Impressive.

Thank you.

Also the Book of Job was written just about that time and mentioned snow, ice, and cold more than any other book in the Bible.

So when scientists try to stretch five extinctions and five different Ice Ages over the evolutionary view of the geologic column, they're not sure how they happen.

But when you compress the geologic column down into a Biblical time frame, it's all explained by a worldwide flood followed by an Ice Age.

Yep, kind of makes you think, doesn't it?

I am evolution.

I am random chance accidents that bring us purposeless nothing, which somehow leads to everything.

I am creation.

I show order and completion.

I point to the eternal One who has created this masterfully designed universe.

Eh, I had to break a few scientific laws to get here.

The law of conservation of mass energy which says, new matter of energy can never be created nor destroyed; the law of causality, which says that every effect must have an equal or greater cause.

Yet I ask you to believe that everything came from nothing, not to mention the law of biogenesis, which says that life always comes from life.

Yet I teach that life came from non-living matter.

I never go against the scientific laws because I am created by the One who made the energy, the great cause that made all the effects, the living God who created life, matter, the laws of nature, and all things.

I am marked by an invisible past.

Fossils show none of my expected in-between forms.

I am witnessed in the book that tells how I came about, the Bible.

I am talked about in almost every science textbook.

Their information often changes and disagrees, but it's all the truth, at least for today.

My book has stood the test of time.

Like the God that revealed it, my truth never changes.

I am clever storytelling.

If what you see doesn't fit with what I'm saying, well, we'll make it fit.

I only need a small amount of evidence to be considered true because everyone wants to believe me.

I am the search for truth, the narrow path.

Even when you're given amazing evidence I was made by the creator of all, most will not acknowledge me.

You'll be popular if you believe in me, even if I'm wrong, which of course, I'll cleverly cover.

You will be ridiculed if you believe in Jesus, the creator.

But in Him, there is hope and purpose.

I am a fingerprint of the eternal God, and you are a reflection of His image.

I am freedom.

I free you from having to be responsible to anyone but yourself.

Freedom to die.

I point to the One who gives freedom to live, freedom to be loved by the One who knows you inside and out forever.

I reflect a society that declares we don't need God.

We are our own gods, if you must use that word.

I reflect the designer of everything from this vast universe to the smallest particle.

His ways are far beyond our ways.

He doesn't need us, but yet He calls.

Will you hear?

I am heard from the loudest voices, rock stars, movie stars, even many of your teachers, even powerful religious leaders.

I am the still small voice calling you to follow the Creator and submit to Him as a savior.

I call a fantasy glob of tissue a choice.

I call it a masterpiece of the Creator from the very first cell with a lifetime of choices to make.

I am millions of years of death.

Death?

Yes, all the death through natural selection brought about life.

Millions of years of death to get here, death is my champion.

And time and chance are his allies.

Yes, I, the creation, groan in pain because of sin and death.

But death was the payment for the wrongs we commit, not a way to advance the world.

Yet within Me is also evidence of new life.

The way I am sustained, the miracle of a tree growing from a tiny seed, all point to my creator, Jesus Christ, the One who stretched out the universe and allowed His human hands to be stretched out and nailed to a cross to pay off that death sentence for me and for you.

It's free for anyone willing to admit their wrongs and believe that He died and rose again.

Amazing life, eternal life.

Believe in me and you can have your own way today and die tomorrow, and I will be served.

For when you die, there will have been no reason for your random existence.

Believe in God and you will find ultimate purpose, the plan He had for you since the very foundation of the Earth because He loves you.

Stop!

Choose me, just accept it, nod your head, agree, and we'll move on.

Oh, man, I've claimed the lives of so many.

Today, you believe in me a little.

Tomorrow, you believe in your myth a little less.

No, think, don't just believe because everybody else does.

Because if you look, really look at me and the words He revealed, you'll see Him.

Find Him and you will find life, eternal life.

It's your choice.

I call heaven and Earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you.

Life.

And death.

Blessing.

And cursing.

Therefore, choose life that both you and your descendants may live.

I hope, I really hope it makes you think.