Chapter 28 - Ok, what about Lucy and the human skeletons they've found?

Lucy is a 3 foot monkey skeleton that they have declared to be the skeleton of an intermediate stage of evolutionary development; an ancestor to human beings.  They say it's an ape-man because the femur has an angle to it, while ground dwelling monkeys have a straight femur.  Humans have an angle on the femur to the hip, so they say that Lucy was on the way to becoming a human.  Here are two things they don't tell you though.  Tree dwelling monkeys have an angle from the femur to the hip.  They found the leg bones of "Lucy" a mile and a half away and in a different stratum layer than the head and other bones.  They put them together anyway and say it's an ancestor of man.  Umm...  Enough said.

They also have skulls of men that have receding foreheads and different shapes that they say were ape-like.  You only have to look at some tribes that exist today to see that there are people alive today that look just like that.  They aren't half ape, either.  They're human beings.

Please allow me to dispel a myth right here about the different "races" of humans.    Just some stuff that "they" don't like us to know.  Scientific American, February 2003; DNA is 99.9% alike in all human races.  There have been articles published where they are trying to convince us that black people have very different DNA than white people.  This is simply not true.  You can compare two black people and get DNA structure further apart than a white and a black comparison.  It just depends on the people you are comparing.  It's just genetics and dominant characteristics.  Dominant does not mean exclusive.  There are many, many families with highly diverse skin color within the family tree.  Some are very dark while some are very light, and everything in between.  Chinese people don't have squinty eyes, there's just more fat around the eye.  It's just genetics.  They are not a different evolution of man with totally different DNA.  Remember Esau in the bible?  He had a hairy body much like an animal.  God wrote a very diverse code into our DNA when He created us.

Think about this for a sec...  if you take DNA and simplify it down to a very basic and simple formula, it helps to make sense of it.  Say, for example, DNA in a "parent" person or animal consists of XxYyZz.  Any of those attributes can be mixed so you could have XXyyZz or xxYyZZ in an offspring, since the parent has all of the attributes to give the child.  If a parent only has xxYYZz, then the offspring can ONLY have a combination of the parents attributes.  So, in this case a child could NOT have X or y at all since the parent does not have it, but can have x and Y since the parent does have it.  This is the way gene's work.  As animals and people have offspring, sometimes the splitting off and combining of certain genes causes some attributes or genes to never makes it to the offspring and as groups split up and migrate, some of the genes are completely missing from that group of offspring forever, unless there's another group that intermixes and re-introduces that gene at some point.  This is why we have dominant genes in animals and people in different geographic locations.

A discovery was made where they recently found two skeletons from what they thought were humans from millions of years apart in evolutionary development in the same area and the same layer of stratum.  This means that the two humans were both in the same place at the same time.  They couldn't possibly have been millions of years apart in an evolutionary line.

The theory of evolution is just a theory, and no one can scientifically prove the idea that anything has ever evolved from one particular species into another.  Yes, we do see differences in species in different parts of the world, and mutations can occur.  A mutation is not an adaptation, however, and mutations generally kill the thing that is mutated.  A species can actually adapt to an adverse environment and change to survive, and that adaptation can happen relatively fast (a lot faster than was assumed to support the evolution theory) as shown by experiments conducted by scientists around the world in recent years.  But, no one has ever shown that a species can actually change into another species even in the tiniest way.  Evolution is a belief, not a science.  The previous point (speed of adaptation), however, simply adds to the argument against evolution since there are so many things about human beings that don't fit into this mold at all.  For instance, if we've evolved over billions of years on this planet; why can't we see at night since we've spent half of those billions of years in the dark?  Why are cats and relatively few other species the only one's endowed with this ability?  And why does the sun burn us when we've spent half of those billions of years in the sun?  Why haven't we developed any protection from darkness and the suns rays or even moderate temperature changes?  We haven't had homes and desk jobs long enough to make the difference.  We spent our time outside in the elements working our fields for food or hunting, etc.  If evolution were a fact, we'd have much more adapted bodies to the environment we live in.  Have our minds have made us so superior to animals that we no longer have the strength of animals or need hairy bodies and thick skin to protect us from cold, or fangs to tear the meat from our prey?  And our natural ability to outsmart everything has made it so we don't need any of those things?  Hello???  Everything we know about human history is about warfare and competition and being bigger and stronger than our neighbor.  We don't have weaker muscles than animals because we don't use them; we have these bodies because this is the way God made us.  He separated us from the animals in many ways.

The common theory states that there was matter and energy, already in existence, that exploded 15 billion years ago and has expanded into the present state of the universe.  That basic science means that if I take the bicycle out in my garage and leave it sitting around and expose it to energy for 15 billion years it could turn into a living, breathing, ferocious tiger!  Pretty stupid, huh?  But that's really what they're trying to sell us, minus all the unproven "scientific evidence" that they say they have.  Hard matter and energy somehow turned into biological life?  And how do we explain the fallacy that two co-existing elements that can't live without each other (proteins and nucleic acids) spontaneously came into being at the same time?  How far from logic do we have to turn in order to allow this to slip by our theories?  Evolution is a belief, not a science.

It actually takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in Creation!