FOSSIL SKULLS - BLOW FROM FOSSIL SKULLS TO DARWINISM

Darwin’s thesis, suggesting that men and apes evolved from a common ancestor, could not be supported by scientific findings, neither during the period it was first proposed, nor in the years since the middle of the 19th century—that is, for approximately 150 years, all efforts put forth to support the fable of man’s evolution have proved void.
All fossils collected have proven that apes were always apes and men were always men; that apes did not transform into men, and that apes and men shared no common ancestor.
Despite Darwinists’ intense propaganda and attempts of intimidation in academic circles, many scientists have found the courage to express this truth. One of them is David Pilbeam, a paleontologist of Harvard University, who states that the so-called evolution of man is a suggestion devoid of any scientific data:
If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meager evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, “Forget it; there isn’t enough to go on.”1

William Fix, author of The Bone Peddlers, a book on paleontology, expresses how the so-called “evolution” of man is not supported by scientific evidence:

As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is “no doubt” how man originated. If only they had the evidence. . . . 2
In the face of the disappointment caused by the fossil record and the lack of any evidence, evolutionists could only re-arrange the fake skulls several times and make speculations about skulls which have been documented to be counterfeits. However, researches made on the skulls of apes, as well as other living beings and different human races that lived in the past, revealed that these living beings have had existed with all the features they had and have not changed throughout history.
This means that living beings have not undergone any process of evolution, and have all been created by the All-Mighty God. As the examples in the following pages also reveal, as well as other organs and limbs of many living creatures such as frogs, lizards, dragonflies, flies and cockroaches, their heads also have not changed. The head structures of birds and fish also remained the same. From the first moment, lions, wolves, foxes, rhinoceroses, pandas, tigers, leopards and hyenas were created, they had the same head structures and they retained these same structures for tens of millions of years.
This unchanging anatomy refutes the claim of evolution of living beings.
 

A 20-million-year-old fossilized rhino skull 






This sameness, which is common to all species, also holds true for man. Just as no changes have happened in the head structures of tens of thousands of living species over millions of years, no evolutional change occurred in the skulls of men. Just as fish have always remained as fish, birds have always remained as birds and reptiles remained as reptiles, so men always remained as men. No organ or structure of any living being have “evolved” from the primitive to more advanced forms, as evolutionists continually suggest.
While evolutionists talk about the so-called evolution of man, they make their own evolutionary arrangement and family tree, presenting the volumes, eyebrow projection or forehead structures of the skulls they unearth as evidence. But these structural differences are by no means any evidence for evolution, for some of these skulls belong to different races of men who lived in the past, whereas others belong to some extinct species of ape. It is utterly natural that different human races should have different skull structures. Different fish species also have differently shaped heads. For instance the shape of head of a salmon trout is much different from that of an eel, yet both are fish.
Similarly, there are differences between the skull structures of different human races. There are differences in forehead structures, eyeholes, eyebrow projections and skull volumes between Pigmies and British, Russians and Chinese, Aborigines and Inuit or Blacks and Japanese. Yet these differences do not mean that one race has evolved from another or that any particular race is “more primitive” or “more advanced” than any other.