One thing is common to all the evolutionist articles and news reports; statements with no scientific grounding, futile but relentless efforts to hide the truths…

American Scientist’s November-December 2014 issue published an article under the title, “The Evolutionary Truth About Living Fossils” also features an example of that phenomenon. 

This article claims ‘...the use of fossil pictures together with their living counterparts in the Atlas of Creation, did not refute the theory of evolution.’ One of the allegations in the piece was that ‘there was a misuse of the concept “living fossil” and that the living fossils did not refute the evolutionary idea nor did they provide evidence against evolution’. These allegations do not bear any scientific value. 

First of all, the only way to refute or verify the theory of evolution is science. To do that, one has to resort to disciplines such as paleontology, microbiology, genetics and zoology. For this reason, we will answer the allegation in the piece by using the science of fossils, in other words paleontology.

Correct use of the term ‘living fossils’

Paleontology aims to establish the history of life by using the fossils as data. To this end, it sometimes makes use of the remains of organisms which have turned into fossils over long periods of time, such as millions of years, or their traces.

Fossils enable us to compare the organisms of the past with their living counterparts. For example, by comparing a crocodile with the fossil of another crocodile that lived 190 million years ago, we can easily see if there is any difference or not. This comparison will show us that the crocodiles haven’t changed at all in millions of years, just like all other fossils show us. That’s why we use the term “living fossil”.

Fossils deal the most serious blow to the theory of evolution

At the same time, we can use the science of fossils to establish whether or not the assumptions of the evolutionists have any credibility. The evolutionists claim that the living things evolve in time through small changes. If this claim was true, we should have seen the evidence of that in fossil records. 

The fossil records prove to us that living things haven’t changed even slightly over hundreds of millions of years. So if the evolutionists want to claim otherwise, they need to prove it.

However, the fossil records do not have any evidence to back up the Darwinists claims of ‘change over time’. Contrary to the words of Darwinists, who maintain that the living things evolved from each other and that there are transitional forms proving that, the research of the last 150 years has failed to provide even one single fossil of those so-called transitional forms.

This shows us that the fossils refute evolution,  not support it.

The said article also claims that the fossil of a “Coelacanth” is not the same as its living counterpart. This is an example of a futile attempt to save the day, because the Coelacanth is a species that Darwinists have made countless speculations over, as they wrongly thought that it was a ‘transitional form’; that is, until they caught very much alive and saw that their speculations were nothing but inaccurate.

(Please see below for more information on Coelacanth:

www.harunyahya.com/en/Articles/17109/Coelacanth-is-not-a-transitional-form-it-is-a-perfect-deep-water-fish

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Articles/16138/The-idea-that-the-coelacanth-is-an-example-of-the-transition-from-sea-to-land-is-a-fraud http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Articles/13831/The-coelacanth-that-evolutionists-claim-as-a-transitional-form-is-living-in-the-seas-as-a-perfect-life-form

When the Coelacanth, which has fossils dating back to 400 million years ago, was caught alive, making it clear that it was a deep sea animal and that it had no link to reptiles, the evolutionists were shocked and couldn't contain their surprise in one article in the April 2003 issue of Focus:

Even the discovery of a living dinosaur would have been less surprising. Because fossils show that the coelacanth existed 150-200 million years before the appearance of the dinosaurs. The creature put forward by many scientists as the ancestor of land-dwelling vertebrates, believed to have disappeared at least 70 million years ago, had been found!"

After  200 more Coelacanths were caught and  detailed studies confirmed that there was no change over time in this animal as the evolutionists like to think, and  to the contrary, it had a stable structure that did not go through any changes.

http://www.harunyahya.com/en/Books/4146/atlas-of-creation--/chapter/4464

You can also study the living things here and their fossils and you decide for yourself.

The allegations in American Scientist are important in that it shows the despair the Darwinist media is suffering from; but this doesn't change the fact that Darwinists need to prove their theories with science, rather than pinning their hopes on speculations.

Darwinists better resort to science, rather than making futile efforts 

There is another important that merits discussion regarding the piece on American Scientist:

In the study of the fossils,  physical appearances are used to determine  indicative physical attributes so that the relevant species can be established. For this reason, the remarks in the article claiming that ‘…maybe there is a difference, but we cannot know…’ conflict with the methods of paleontology. The reason why we can tell to which species the fossils belong to is because they haven’t changed at all. Because of the fact that  living things are stable, we can easily compare the fossils with their living counterparts and determine the relevant species.

That excerpted sentence sounds like it was written with the childish denial psychology by a person who doesn't want to see the truth.

To sum it up, if any change took place, we should have seen that change in the fossil records, but there is no such thing in the fossil records. More than 550 million fossils show us clearly that  living things came into being fully-formed, suddenly and that no change took place as the evolutionists like to claim.

Needless to say, the book called 'Atlas of Creation', which is also mentioned in the piece, played a big role in exposing this truth.

The impact of the Atlas of Creation still continues

While many people didn't know what fossils were, and many thought that fossils were rare phenomena that could be seen only in museums, the astonishing Atlas of Creation by Mr. Adnan Oktar helped change these misconceptions.

Now almost everyone knows what fossils are and more importantly they were introduced to these scientific proofs dating back from millions of years ago. His book created an enormous  impact throughout the world.

This magnificent work embellished with high quality pictures of fossils, is not only beautiful, but it also offers irrefutable scientific evidence for the invalidity of the theory of evolution with overwhelming evidence for God’s supreme creation.

People scrupulously studied every page of Atlas of Creation and understood that the living things of today were the same millions of years ago as well.

It is obvious that a person who starts reading such a book and seeing that  living things haven’t changed will not believe in evolution after that. This defeat is the reason why the Darwinist articles sound so alarmed.

The news reports about the Atlas of Creation in the international media are crucial in showing this catastrophic defeat for the evolutionists are available at this link. http://darwinistpanicinfrance.com/

Adnan Oktar's piece in Truth Seeker:

http://www.truth-seeker.info/featured/11945/