Lucy: Clearcut Case of Evolutionist Fraud

Answers in Genesis ^ | 2003 | Dr. David Menton, Brown Univ.

[tomzz]

This little video was shown at the apologetics group at the McLean Bible Church last week and the effect on viewers was rather striking.

Lucy is the 40% more-or-less complete australopithicus skeleton which is commonly presented as a missing link of sorts, and the thought processes behind the manner in which reconstructions of lucy are presented indicates a mindset in which, at every juncture at which reality clashes with ideology, it is reality which simply gets tossed.

Lucy's actual remains did not included hands or feet and reconstructions are commonly presented with human or near-human hands and feet despite the fact that other skeletons of the same creature have hands and feet which are clearly those of an ape, with curved fingers for moving about in trees. Mary Leakey in fact had found clear tracks of human footprints in the same strata and location as Lucy's remains and the assumption is that at least one australopithicus MUST have had human feet.

Asked whether a better explanation would be that the tracks were simply produced by humans, Leakey and others replied that was impossible since the tracks were millions of years old.

The obvious explanation of course is that a human made the footprints and "Lucy" was simply that human's pet monkey.

The story actually gets better (much better) from there if you can believe that, with evolutionists claiming that a deer or other animal trampled "Lucy"'s hips and pelvis, breaking them into pieces, and that the pieces congealed by chances into the conformation of those of an ape, and deriving the true picture of Lucy's hips and pelvis by making a plaster cast, breaking it up with a saw, and then rearranging the pieces into a more human conformation.

For anybody willing to part with the twelve dollars, this little documentary offers an astonishing glimpse into the mindset of the evolution true believer.

David Menton earned a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University. He served as a biomedical research technician at Mayo Clinic and then as an associate professor of anatomy at Washington University School of Medicine (St Louis). For almost two decades he has been profiled in American Men and Women of Science—A Biographical Directory of Today’s Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences. Dr. Menton has lectured throughout the United States and Canada on the creation-evolution controversy.

[Bellflower]

hell might be a blessing....
NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!on into infinity
Fire, smoke, brimstone, worms that do not die, gnashing of teeth, no hope of ever, ever, ever getting out, and worst of all, separation from God Himself (this will be the worst as you were created for Him) and therefore ALL that is good. Also, the knowlege that you contributed to others including love ones being there somewhere in the blackness of burning hell.

[KnightofMotley]

HEY, NOW....

Let’s not insult the chimps.

[thinking freely]

To me, one of the biggest flaws in your logic is your finding that the similarity in structure to an ostrich bone is proof that it is evolved from one. It could also be proof that it wasn’t properly identified in the first place.

Looking more closely at the genetic code is the core issue... people want to defend evolution to the exclusion of common sense, even if all you do is strip everything down to basic DNA.

I suppose that you consider it to be more intelligent to find that you have evolved from primordial goo to have the distinct DNA that you do, and that every living creature that exists with its own distinct DNA pattern evolved from that same primordial goo.

Yes, and you find the flawed findings of Lucy’s fossils to be your smoking gun. Where are the rest? Surely with the billions of steps between primordial goo and every other living creature, the intermediary creatures - all of them - must be somewhere.

And if Darwin, who actually already believed in evolution before he went to the Galapagos Islands, truly discovered a principle upon which to base science for all eternity, why didn’t Robert FitzRoy, who was examining the exact same ecological evidence at the same time, arrive at the same conclusions?

Evolutionists refuse to consider that their methods of dating could be wrong, despite evidence to the contrary. They refuse to understand that you can’t make something out of nothing, although quantum physics can lead them there.

Yes, we do have a Divine Creator, but no, we’ve never been an accident.