To support the assumption that connecting links are extinct, they appeal to fossils. In this field they have a double advantage:
 

(a) Not one in a hundred is able to examine the evidence, much less understand it.

(b) Once they find a bone, they can name it what they please, date it when they please, add as much ink or plaster of paris as they please, and who can hinder them? Newspapers are ready to feature any guess or any picture they can fabricate.

Here are two samples of how it is done.

The Pithecanthropus Erectus is the name of a bone and what ink does with it. (If you can't pronounce it, it must be scientific.) The shaded portion represents a piece of skull bone. The outline shows how they think the former owner ought to have looked to fit the theory. To know that a bone had a flat nose and wore a No. 24 collar, is SUPER-science. It apes divinity. They make no report as to whether the gentleman had freckles. Perhaps they do not know.
 

On the right side of the page is another job of "restoring." Two bones and two teeth are called "The Sussex Man." It is adapted and drawn to scale from a magazine article entitled "SCIENCE." The face and head are how he "might have looked." If you will cut out a piece of paper exactly like the bones and lay it over the savage face, you will see that to make the "Sussex man" fit the theory of evolution, his head is made too small for the skull bone and his face much too long for the jaw bone. You can feed this sort of "science" to anyone who is as willing and trusting as a young robin when he gets his dinner.

So far as is certainly known, life appeared on earth in substantially the order that is given in Genesis. All the experts seem to agree that there are great gaps in the records of the rocks and that so far as these records go, some forms appeared abruptly. If there were intermediate forms, they have been lost in the gaps. Many of the claims of great geologists and paleontologists are disputed by others equally great. The author is not competent to pass upon these claims. We may all of us use common sense and to such it will be apparent that to prove one animal lived before another, does not prove one descended from the other. If the bones of a Shetland pony are found beneath the bones of a draft horse, there is yet room for doubt that the Shetland was the ancestor. No matter where you find the bones, the lap dog is not the father of the Great Dane.

If someone digs us out 10,000 years hence, they may find tomato cans under automobiles. They may show that tomato cans preceded automobiles. Even if they prove that no nation ever produced automobiles till after eating tomatoes, it will not prove that tomatoes caused automobiles, much less that au-tomobiles evolved from cans, with an intermediate wheelbar-row missing.

In order to disprove creation, the rocks must show that not all creatures were brought forth "after their kind," as God says they were and as they certainly are now. They will never do that.

While there is a matter of 800,000,000 years difference in the claims of the experts, no one need to get uneasy for fear the friends of the Bible will be fighting science. So long as nine-tenths of the vast periods they claim, are in dispute, some of us will continue to put quotation marks around the "science" that seeks to replace revelation with opinions.