reply to post by boymonkey74
I know it's off topic from the OP but I thought I would comment on the proof/evidence for evolution. I know there is more than what I present here,
but at least here are a few things worth mention.
Lucy the famous Australopithecus afarensis skeleton that was heralded as the missing link between humans and their primitive origins has been shown to
be its own unique species (a "southern ape") with features that do not resemble either humans nor the species of apes that humans are claimed to have
evolved from. The Australopithecus are their own type of animal, if they existed at all. The "Lucy" skeleton was only 20% complete (The 40% numbers
come from a "half skeleton" way of counting bones, where duplicate bones are not included) with no hand or feet bones which Johanson also left out of
his percentage calculations since hands and feet are so rare to find. Even at only 20% complete she is still the most complete fossil of her kind.
Richard Leaky, another famous fossil anthropologist, said that there is so little left of the skull that it is virtually impossible to identify the
species of the fossil, yet National Geographic has completely recreated her face from scratch to make it look like what they want it to look like, a
mix between man and ape.
The Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus haroldcookii), called the "ape of the Western world" was used as evidence of evolution based off of the discovery of
a single tooth, nothing else (it's said that the scientific world never claimed the tooth as proving man's evolution, but they DID consider it to be
an evolved/advanced ape of some sort). Later, additional bones were found belonging to that fossil and they turned out to belong to an extinct species
that highly resembled... wait for it... pigs. This of course happened a long time ago (1920's-....) but it sets the stage for just how scientific
these scientists are in presenting "proof" of evolution.
Even more famous is Piltdown man (Eoanthropus dawsoni) who was discovered in 1912. It was claimed to be the skull of one of those intermediate stages
between ape and human but it turned out to be the skull of a modern day man with the jaw of a modern day orangutan attached. It took the scientific
community 40 years to finally release the news that it had been a hoax. What I'm unsure of is whether it took them 40 years to figure out it was a
fake or if it took 40 years for them to admit their huge mistake/hoax.
Neanderthals are now considered to pretty much be humans that suffered from severe arthritis and rickets.
"Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later
officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year
old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like."(source:
"Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983. Copied from nwcreation.net)
Sir Arthur Keith, the paleontologist who wrote the forward to the 100th anniversary edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species" said that "Evolution is
unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable." darwin's work shows that he was
both a sexist and a racist btw.
So pretty much, evolution is a theory that has been flawed from the start but is accepted simply because it denies God. anything so long as God isn't
Science uses the above types of examples to "prove" the evolution of man. Considering the options, Christians consider it more logical that an
all-powerful God exists and created the universe as it is.
edit on 16-3-2012 by Mykahel because: Name spelling error