Page 855 - Atlas of Creation Volume 1

Harun Yahya

Most evolutionist books do not tell the "how" of the subject. Even in the most "scientific" sources, the ab-
surdity of this assertion is concealed behind sentences such as "the transfer from water to land was
achieved".

How was this "transfer" achieved? We know that a fish cannot live for more than a few minutes out of
water. If we suppose that the alleged drought occurred and the fish had to move towards the land, what
would have happened to the fish? The response is evident. All of the fish coming out of the water would die
one by one in a few minutes. Even if this process had had lasted for a period of ten million years, the answer
would still be the same: fish would die one by one. The reason is that such a complex organ as a complete

lung cannot come into being by a sudden "accident", that is, by mutation; but half a lung, on the other hand,
is of no use at all.
But this is exactly what the evolutionists propose. "Transfer from water to land", "transfer from land to

air" and many more alleged leaps are "explained" in these illogical terms. As for the formation of really com-
plex organs such as the eye and ear, evolutionists prefer not to say anything at all.
It is easy to influence the man on the street with the package of "science". You draw an imaginary picture
representing transfer from water to land, you invent Latin words for the animal in the water, its "descen-
dant" on land, and the "transitional intermediary form" (which is an imaginary animal), and then fabricate

an elaborate lie: "Eusthenopteron transformed first into Rhipitistian Crossoptergian, then Ichthyostega in a long
evolutionary process". If you put these words in the mouth of a scientist with thick glasses and a white coat,
you would succeed in convincing many people, because the media, which dedicates itself to promoting evo-

lution, would announce the good news to the world with great enthusiasm.

Adnan Oktar 853