Whichever way you turn, evolution is met with insurmountable difficulties, and faced with facts, which are absolutely destructive of the theory. Transmutation is necessary for the theory, yet there is not one single bit of proof that such ever took place. If the theory is true, then transmutation must have occurred millions of times, and yet no fossil remains, no skeleton remains, nothing living on this earth bears evidence to it. It were impossible to have fossils and skeletons of the different species, and yet have none of the far more numerous intermediate forms demanded by evolutionists, which must according to their theory have needed millions of years and numberless generations for their evolution.
Then again, many of the developments demanded would be a hindrance rather than a help. For instance, take the wing of a bird as example. If the bird were created a bird with fully developed wings one can understand the wings would be highly useful and necessary. But if the wing evolved from small beginnings, in all its intermediate stages it would be a hindrance and a danger rather than a help. And seeing natural selection is claimed to produce only that which is useful and necessary, natural selection would refuse an immature wing as a useless and dangerous appendage. The theory is self-destructive. Furthermore, the sterility of hybrids is another death blow to the theory.
Again the Glacial Period reducing the antiquity of man to Scripture limits is another heavy blow to the theory, for it is impossible, according to evolutionists, for man to have evolved from a primordial germ-cell in such a short space of time as less than 10,000 years, especially when that period is further reduced by the fact that we can trace man as having arrived at a high state of civilization as far back as 4,000 years ago.
The mummies of Egypt, 3,500 years old, show us man as developed as the man of today. There is no trace of the simian about them. So the margin left for the evolutionist becomes uncomfortably small. Haeckel's 1,000,000,000 years is reduced to 6,000 years, and that giving a liberal margin.
We might go over a very large range of proofs to illustrate our point, viz., that man, as we know him today, was in existence thousands of years ago, but let us confine ourselves to Egypt.
Professor L. T. Townsend writes:- " The Egyptians builded immense cities, invented systems of astronomy and writing, constructed a time calendar, founded schools of law and medicine, gathered extensive libraries, and did some things in ways that people of the present generation are unable to do ' Collapse of Evolution, p. 28.
Contrast the mighty pyramids of the ancients with the mud hovels of the moderns in Egypt today; the power of the Egyptian monarchy of long ago with the baseness of the present kingdom and the condition of the degraded fellaheen today, and you can only come to the conclusion that man is not progressing but rather the reverse. The one exception to this is where the Christian religion has triumphed. There men progress. This is too patent to need any proof.