The absurd claim about rubbery soft tissue being 68 million years old is enough to push this theory into the dustbin of history, but there’s plenty more absurdity posing as science where that absurdity came from. In the Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument, there is a  fossil of a beautifully formed wolf spider, a big, hairy spider. Before going any further, consider this, if a big hairy spider died in a forest or in the jungle, how long do you think that spider would remain there laying there on the ground with its body fully intact before turning to mush and disintegrating into dust? How long would it last assuming it doesn’t get eaten, ten years maybe? A hundred years? Five hundred years? A thousand years? Well, get this, there is a sign at this national park that claims that the fossils there were formed at the rate of—and I kid you not, this is what it really says—two inches per one million years. So understand what that means, what they’re trying to tell you, what they’re trying to sell you. The evolutionary claim is a spider died and sedimentary rock built up around that spider very, very, very slowly, at the rate of two inches every million years, and its body remained fully formed, fully intact, for all of that time and formed this beautifully formed fossil of a large spider. For arguments sake, let’s say the spider in question is one inch or so in height. So the claim is that spider remained there as a fully formed spider without disintegrating into dust for 500,000 years before a flawless wolf spider fossil was formed as sedimentary rock slowly built up around the spider during those 500,000 years as it laid there on the ground remaining fully intact. Does that make any sense? At all? Can you believe this is what is taught in our schools? To believe in evolution is to be ignorant of the fossil record. If you subscribe to the theory of evolution, you’re either ignorant of the fossil record or you’re a propagator of propaganda about the fossil record. 

There is a dinosaur fossil with a name in the fossil record. It is called Willo. Willo is a dinosaur fossil with its heart intact, fully visible. 

QUESTION: How does the body of a dinosaur with its heart exposed stay intact like that for thousands of years while sedimentary rock builds up around it incredibly slowly? 

ANSWER: It doesn’t. Yes, it was a trick question. 

How fast do fossils really form with bodies fully intact, like the wolf spider I mentioned, or Willo with a fully exposed heart, or fossils of a bigger fish eating a smaller fish in its mouth? Did such fossils form over thousands or millions of years? No, they formed very quickly in sediment like wet concrete in a little something called the flood of Noah. The physical evidence of the fossil record does not fit the evolutionary account, but it does fit the Genesis account. Isn’t science supposed to consist of empirical evidence? Where then is the empirical evidence for the theory of evolution? 

Consider the following proliferous lack of empirical evidence in the fossil record for the theory of evolution:

• In the fossil record, there is no physical evidence of anteaters with shorter and progressively longer snouts. The theory of evolution would have it that the anteater evolved its long snout gradually over thousands and millions of years. So at one point, according to the theory of evolution, there had to be an evolutionary ancestor to the modern anteater with a short snout, let’s say a 1 inch snout for arguments sake. And gradually, over thousands and millions of years, there would have been an anteater with a 2 inch snout, and then an anteater with a 3 inch snout, and so forth up to the modern day anteater with its very long snout of dozens of inches. So is there such a sequence in the fossil record? No, there is not. 
• Likewise, the fossil record does not show a sequence of giraffes starting with very short necks and progressively longer necks right up to the length of the necks of modern day giraffes. Nor are there any sequences for any other animals with extreme traits that shows the progression of how that particular animal got to be that way. The reason why we don’t see such sequences recorded in the fossil record is because they never existed to begin with. 
• In what is known as the Cambrian explosion, organisms appear abruptly and fully formed in the fossil record with no precursor forms like the theory of evolution tells us. That is, you don’t see a trail of simpler organisms evolving into more complex organisms in the fossil record as evolutionary science espouses. There are just complex organisms showing up in the fossil record with none of the simpler precursor forms, which is contrary to the model of the theory of evolution. Plus, the number of classification of life forms, called phyla, was actually greater when the fossil record was recorded than it is today. There are a lesser number of species or kinds of animals on earth today as there were then, a lesser number of phyla. This is in direct opposition to what the model of the theory of evolution tells us. Evolution would have it that from one single cell, through natural selection and random, thoughtless mutations, came all the various kinds of animals and things, all the different phylas and fellas we see on the planet today. So the evolutionary model speaks to one simple cell evolving into the various higher life forms, all the different life forms (phylas) we see on the planet today, but the physical fossil record tells another story altogether. The physical fossil record actually displays the number of different life forms or phyla appearing fully formed in the fossil record without any of precursor organisms and the number of phyla since then has only been decreasing. We see species going extinct all the time, but never do we see new species or new kinds of animals being formed. 
• There is no sequence in the fossil record showing one species or kind of animal changing into another species or kind of animal. That is, there are no transitional forms. Darwin himself acknowledged that his theory implied that the number of transitional links between all species must be great in number. The excuse for the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record during Darwin’s time was that much of the fossil record was yet to be uncovered. Well, since then, we have uncovered quite a bit and no intermediate transitional forms have turned up in the fossil record. And the reason for that is they never existed to begin with. The missing link is still, well, missing. And it will forever be missing because it never existed. If mammals have evolved from a single common ancestor into the diverse forms we see today as evolution requires, where are the links between not only men and apes, but where are the links between all like species or kinds of animals, like for example, the transitional forms between cows and hippopotamuses, a “cowopotamus” if you will? All of them will forever be missing from the fossil record because they never existed to begin with.  

 So again, I ask, just where is the empirical evidence in the fossil record for the theory of evolution? It may exist in the minds of those who propagandize the theory of evolution, but it doesn’t exist in the physical fossil record. 

The above folly and proliferous lack of evidence is more than enough to sink this silly theory, but wait, there’s more! The theory of evolution does not even pass the simplest and most odoriferous smell tests of common sense and logic. For example, the theory of evolution would have it that it took thousands and millions of years for an anteater to evolve its long snout and tongue which it uses to get its food. Well, what did these supposed anteater ancestors do in the mean time for food, wait thousands and millions of years to grow a long snout so they could eat? Hah! If they were able to use other means to survive, then there wouldn't have been any need for a long nose and so a long nose wouldn’t have been amplified by natural selection. Likewise, what about skunks, whose defense is their scent glands, did they wait thousands or millions of years to evolve their scent glands? They would have been wiped out by predators if they had to wait thousands of years for their scent glands to evolve. They would have had other means to survive well before that and so there would be no need for their scent glands to evolve, to be amplified by natural selection. The theory of evolution is the antithesis of common sense and cannot even pass smell tests of the most odoriferous kind like these. 

The theory of evolution is a theory that requires one to replace logic and common sense with folly. Consider the laughably absurd idea that natural selection and mutations—the engine of change for this ridiculous theory—can account for how speech came about. Let us consider some of the components necessary for speech. First, there is the FOXP2 gene, the gene used for producing and recognizing speech. Let’s give to the theory of evolution as a starting point the FOXP2 gene popping up via a mutation and then take it from there and see if either logic or folly follows from there. OK, let us assume that one day, via a mutation, a monkey (a monkey-man-wannabe supposed ancestor) was born with a FOXP2 gene. That’s all well and good, but that gene alone is only one component necessary for speech. In contrast to monkeys today, humans have extraordinarily functional and controllable muscles around their lips and cheeks. Also in sharp contrast to monkeys, most of the motor cortex in humans is devoted to vocalization. And only humans have the ability to use their tongue, cheeks, and lips together with their teeth, to produce phonemes, the building blocks for words. So here is where we are asked to suspend logic and common sense and accept folly. Never mind the fact that the FOXP2 gene would be useless to the mutated monkey (hence there would be no reason for natural selection to amplify or advance it) since the monkey mates of the mutated monkey wouldn’t be able to understand him even if he could talk because they also would have needed the FOXP2 gene to understand speech, but nevertheless, what happened, did one fine day everything necessary for speech fall into place and the monkey with the FOXP2 gene suddenly mutated remarkably well-developed and controllable muscles around his lips and cheeks and used his tongue in conjunction with his newly mutated motor cortex and say “well I’ll be a monkey’s uncle!”? Hah!

This foolishly laughable theory is full of fraud and folly and is propped up by scientists who are blinded by their egos and intoxicated by their ludicrous theories about how life originated on planet earth. According to evolutionists, what is the origin of all species, just how did life begin on planet earth? They don’t know. Darwin even called his book “On the Origin of Species”, yet, he and evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of species. You can’t make this stuff up. Never mind the fact that evolutionists can’t explain how their proverbial first living cell came into existence and never mind the fact that guys in white lab coats cannot create life in a lab in controlled situations and we’re supposed to believe it happened all by itself in nature, but for arguments sake, let’s give them their proverbial first living cell in a Frankenstein “it’s alive” type beginning and proceed from there and see if this cockamamie theory makes any sense whatsoever. Come with me now down a very strange and deep and demented rabbit hole. According to evolutionists, billions of years ago in a primordial soup of slimy, pond scum stuff, somehow, one fine day, actually, on a stormy day with fearsome lightning, a single cell came to life in a Frankenstein “it’s alive!” type moment. Then over eons of time, this simple one cell of life evolved into all the higher life forms we see on the planet today. That’s right, according to evolutionists, every living thing you see on the planet today evolved from that one single cell. Over eons of time, the first single cell evolved into more and more complex organisms in a primordial soup with male organism fishy things evolving independently and at the same time and in parallel with female organism fishy things, each with their gender specific parts intact, and they peaked at the right time and in the right place after millions and millions of years and culminated in an orgasmic explosion of breakthrough of life in a womb. That is basically their claim. I kid you not. And get this, according to evolutionists, the engine of change to get the increase in genetic information to go from a lower life form of a single cell to higher life forms where you have males and females of species, is mutations—blind, thoughtless, random mutations. That’s right, according to evolutionists, everything we see on the planet today—everything from worms to whales to humans and everything in between—all of it came about by the stuff second-rate horror movies are made of, mutations. Like I said, you can’t make this stuff up. 

So just how did the increase in the information in the genome come about according to this cockamamie theory of evolution? Well, below is a video of the high priest or Pope you could say, of the religion of the theory of evolution, Richard Dawkins, explaining just how did this increase in the information in the genome come about according to his religion: