Tuesday, August 01, 2006

"Missing Links"

Greetings and Salutations my brethren and sistren. This is my first post and I am honored to be chosen to post on this blog. I love to interact with my readers so any questions, comments, criticisms would be excellent. Also you can email me at agentx216@yahoo.com or visit my personal blog and MySpace account (I know that might sound lame but it was free and reaches a lot of people) at My URL http://www.myspace.com/agentx216 and My Blog URL
http://blog.myspace.com/agentx216 . Also if you want me to post who I am or whatever just ask. If not I’d be ok to remain a faceless servant. I hope you enjoy my articles, my findings, and my sense of humor.

Cave Men/Missing Links

Nebraska Man

Hesperopithecus Haroldcookii, also known as Nebraska Man was found in 1922 by Herald Cook in Soix Country Nebraska. This âmissing linkâ was established on the basis of one single tooth. Cook, being a rancher and a geologist, thought the tooth looked to be halfway between a humanâs tooth and an apeâs tooth. He then proceeded to construct an entire âpersonâ from this tooth. Then Cook constructed Nebraska Man a wife. The following Cookâs Nebraska Man and wife from Illustrated London News by Amedee Forestier:

This is all from one single tooth; an entire man and a separate woman. Ten years later it was show to be nothing but a peccary tooth, a pigâs tooth. The following is what the Nebraska Man really looked like:

Piltdown Man

Eoanthropus Dawsoni, also know as Piltdown Man, was found in Piltdown, England by a Catholic priest, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin; Charles Dawson; and a few others. They took a manâs skull and apeâs jaw with two teeth and put them together. They then filed them down to fit, treated it with acid to make it look old, they filed down the teeth to make them look more human, and buried it in a gravel pit. Later they dug it up and âdiscoveredâ Piltdown Man.

It was in the textbooks for 40 years and more than 500 doctorate and master papers were written on the Piltdown Man. This hoax was taken as scientific fact for so long and by so many people before it was exposed. Some people might show this as proof that science is self correcting. I agree. However I also agree that evolutionists struggle very hard to âfindâ (e.g. make) proof fit their theory. This is not how science is done. You start with a theory and you see where the evidence takes you. If the evidence shows you that your theory is wrong you adjust the theory or throw it out completely. One should never force facts to fit a theory or falsify them, thatâs not science thatâs fraud.

Neanderthal Man

Homo Neanderthalensis is one the most widely known âmissing linkâ. The first one was found in 1856 in Neanderthal Valley. Ironically the valley was named after Joachem Neander who composed Christian psalms. When first discovered, Neanderthal Man was classified as 100% human. What was found was a man whose back was bent over.

Three years later Charles Darwinâs book, The Origin Of Species, was published. A trek to find proof for evolution was on. However seeing as there was no proof evolution scientists started to reclassify Neanderthal Man as evidence for evolution. Their thinking process was that humans walk on two appendages whereas apes walk on four. Therefore this âapeâ was evolving up.

These conclusions are completely false. Neanderthal Man was just a really old man with arthritis. Heâs going down not evolving up! A lot more Neanderthals have been found in Europe. Their foreheads are thicker than ours today and their brains were bigger as well.

In fact, their bone structures were so strong that they could have picked up an NFL linebacker and throw him over the goal post. There was no proof at all that these men were dumb or primitive. These were probably just regular human beings that lived to be 300 to 400 years old. In fact, Neanderthals are good proof of the Bibleâs global Flood. The Bible says that men lived to be 300 to 400 years old for a few generations after the Flood. Proof for this is in the structure of the bones. As you get older the bones in your forehead get thicker, your ears get bigger, and your nose gets longer; itâs called acromegaly. Jack Cuozzo, a dentists, from New Jersey, went to Europe to study most of the original skeletons. He x-rayed them and found that the scientists put the skeletons together horribly incorrect. The scientists wanted the skeletons to look more ape-like and took one and took the jaw and moved it out of the socket by almost an inch so that it would look like a sloping head. Putting it back in the socket it looks like a normal human. Cuozzo said, âYou must understand that this skull really cries out disease. The teeth are badly decayed, and the bones of the vault of the skull are extremely thick. There are many features that testifyâ�of acromegaly or excess secretion of growth hornmon in adulthoodâ�â (Jack Cuozzo. âBuried Aliveâ. P.72). Many paleoanthropologists are now convinced that Neanderthals walked upright just like we do and have excluded them from the evolutionary line leading to humans.

Cro-magnon Man

Cro-magnon Man is exactly like modern day humans in every regard but one. Theyâre brains were 4% larger.

This does not appear to be evolution in the sense as we know it; that is, we are evolving up and getting better. This appears to be we are âevolvingâ downward or breaking down. This evidence seems to support a Biblical creation theory rather than the evolutionist theory. Yet evolutionists have a hard time explaining why Cro-magnon Man is a âmissing linkâ. If anything we should be his âmissing linkâ according to the evolutionists standpoint.

Australopithecus Africanus (Taung)

Australopithecus Africanus was found by Raymond Dark in 1924. He claimed it was an intermediate link (missing link) between apes and man. In 1973, South African geologists announced that the cave the skull was found in was no more than � million years old. According to evolutionists modern man was already around then. Fossil remains also indicated that Taung was significantly more like modern humans, with a human cranium permiting a large brain and more human facial features.

Australopithecus Afarensis (Lucy)

Australopithecus Afarensis, also known as âLucyâ, is probably the most common proof sited by evolutionists as proof of missing links. Lucy is the keystone that evolutionists hang their hats on as a major evidence of human evolution. Lucy was found by Donald Johanson in 1974 in Hadar Valley, Ethiopia. He was on a grant to find missing links. With time and money running out, on his last few days, Johanson finds Lucy. Sounds a bit fishy. However, the following picture is Lucy, this is what Johanson found:

Only 40% of the skeleton was found; most of it in little bones. This is the most complete skeleton of a Australopithecus Afarensis ever found. The skull was thoroughly crushed so no one knew what the head looked like. Yet this is what textbooks and scientists claim the skull looked like:

from?

This does not match up and there is no way that this is scientifically accurate. Lucy stood about three feet tall and is obviously a chimpanzeeâ�a monkey. Johanson offered some proof as to why he believed this was no a monkey but a missing link.

First Johanson said the most important proof was Lucyâs knee joint. It angled off to the side like a human because a humanâs hips are wider than its knee. An apeâs upper and lower knee are straight. National Georgraphic published a picture of Lucyâs knee:

However this is not Lucyâs knee pictured above. Itâs the Hadar knee which was found a year earlier, 70 meters lower, and over a mile away. This is not scientific integrity but scientific deceit. A second point to make is that an angled femur doesnât prove Lucy is becoming more human. Not only do humans have an angled femur but so do tree climbing monkeys. Because of Lucyâs height and shape this makes her a tree climbing monkeyâ�not a missing link.

Another proof Johanson put forth for proof was that Lucyâs bones were slightly bigger than a regular ape. This does not prove a thing. The bones of a Clydesdale are âslightly biggerâ than a regular horse. This does not prove itâs evolving; itâs just a bigger horse.

Johanson cannot take all the blame in this deception. The St. Louis Zoo put in a wax figure of Lucy on display. They put human feet and hands on the display. However not one foot or hand bone was found.

Every other âLucyâ skeleton that has been found has curled toes, just like a monkey. Washington University professor, David Menton said, âThe statue is âa complete misrepresentation. And I believe they know it is a misrepresentation.ââ The zooâs director of indoctrination, I mean, education, Bruce L. Carr said, âZoo officials have no plans to knuckle under. We cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence. We look at the overall exhibit and the impression it creates. We think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct.â (St. Louis Post Dispatch, July 22, 1996, p.1). Letâs look at what Carr said here. âWe cannot be updating every exhibit based on every new piece of evidence.â Does that mean that he knows his zoo is lying to people? Doesnât this also mean that he isnât concerned with facts or about education? Because finding out new facts would make a real scientist change his/her perspective on his/her theory. âWe think the overall impression this exhibit creates is correct.â We call this indoctrination, people! This is not science being taught at the St. Louis Zoo, itâs forcing people to believe a lie that is known.

Scientists found footprints in Laetoli, Tanzania Africa.

The footprints are described as âremarkably similar to those of moder man.ââ� âThe form of his foot was exactly the same as our.ââ� âWeight-bearing pressure patterns in the prints resemble human onesââ�âfootprints, so very much like our own,â (Footprints in the Ashes of Time, Mark Leakey, National Geographic, April 1979, p. 446-457). Russel H. Tuttle from the University of Chicago did the most extensive study of the Laetoli footprints as well as studying the footprints of more than 70 habitually barefoot people and found, âthe 3.5 million year old footprint trails at Laetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans. None of their features suggest that the Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds than we are. If The F [Laetoli] footprints were not known to be so old, we would readily conclude that they were made by a member of our own genus, homo.â (Russell H. Tuttle, âThe Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feetâ, Natural History, March 1990: p.64). This is facts being forced into a theory and not as it should be, the other way around. National Geographic put darked skinned ape-like creatures on top of the footprints (National Geographic, April 1979, p.446-457). The artists added a toe separation.

This was not found in the actual footprints. Apes, when they walk, their big toe sticks out to the side for grasping; humanâs donât. âThe various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African Apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other.â (Dr. Charles E. Oxnard in Fossils, Teeth, and Sex â New Perspectives on Human Evolution, University of Washington Press, Seattle and London, 1978, p. 227). They arenât a missing link; they are just an unusual monkey. In fact there may be some still alive in Sumatra.

Peking Man

Homo Erectus Pekinensis, also known as the Peking Man was made from pieces of a crushed skull found in the 1920âs in Peking, China.

All evidence was lost during WWII. Scientists found a whole bunch of monkey skull bones in a cave and they found human tools along side them. The conclusion that was made were that these monkeys were making tools. What? Where they also using the tools to crush their own heads in? In fact, what many people donât know, is that scientists found ten human skeletons in the same area. Many cultures eat monkey brains. So a more obvious conclusion is that humans made the tools and crushed the monkeyâs heads with them and then ate their brains. However evolutionists struggle for evidence to support their theory so they are allowed to come up with whatever âfactsâ and âevidenceâ they wish to support their theory.

Homo erectus/Java Man/Pithecanthropus erectus

Homo Erectus, also known as Java Man was found in 1891 in Java, Indonesia by Dutch anatomist, Dr. Eugene Dubois. Dubois went out in search of missing links although he had no formal training in geology or paleontology at the time. His archeological team consisted of prison convicts and two army corporals as supervisors. He took an apeâs skullcap, three human teeth and thigh bone (found a year later and 50 feet away) from a human, and claimed to have found a missing link. He dated it to be 500,000 years old. He hid the fact that he had also found two normal human skulls in the same area. His deceit was revealed 30 years later. âThere are not enough fossil records to answer when, where, and how homo sapiens emerged.â (Takahata, Molecular anthropology, Annual Review of Ecology & Systematics 1995, p. 355)

Homo sapiens sapiens

This is what modern man is called today. Sapien means âwiseâ. So we are the âwise, wise menâ. Romans 1:22 says something about this. âProfessing themselves to be wise, they became fools.â

Even if these skeletons were not disputed what would it matter? When you find bones in the dirt the only thing you know about it was that it died. You donât know if had any offspring and you donât know that it had different kinds of offspring to bring about evolution. Why canât these creatures just be a separate species that came only after its kind? Why are scientists so quick to subscribe bones in the dirt that they find to something that animals cannot do today? That is, produce anything other than its own kind? Evolution is a lie and thus it must use lies to âproveâ them. Evolution is not real science and these âmissing linksâ arenât the result of real science. They are evidence of only showing that even âscientistsâ can have agendas and âstretch the factsâ to fit their theory.

1 Comments:

At 12:23 PM, Blogger Seamus said...

Excellent post, X.

The many well-known hoaxes in evolutionary biology's history are too often overlooked. The most significant oversight, in fact, is that once the hoax is exposed the theory generated by the hoax is left intact.

The Tuang skull, for example, which as you said was shown to be from a cave far younger than originally thought. Evolutionists haven't yet completely abandoned Tuang's "original" age (funny how science ignores facts it doesn't like), but they have moved it around from the Homo to Australopithecus lines and back again. The worst part is that even if they admit that this particular skull, Tuang, was actually much younger, they will never admit that their category created by this skull was invalid all along.

They did the same thing with Piltdown Man, probably the most published evolutionary fraud. They admitted it was a fraud (long after the fact), but they didn't give up the evolutionary charts that Piltdown Man was instrumental in creating.

Once they create some evolutionary ancestor from whatever data or mere fantasy, they will never give it up! They might move it a little on the chart, rename it, or give it a new age, but that ancestor will never completely die. Evidence means nothing.

One of my biggest beefs with evolutionism is its fear of giving the simple truth to students. If you lose the fossil, you lose the charts you built on that fossil. It is not confusing or misleading to tell students that. Why is it confusing or misleading to tell students that the Laetoli footprints are 100% identical to modern man? Why is it confusing or misleading to tell students that the Tuang skull doens't fit the very evolutionary tree it created since its age was later found to be discrepant? Why can't they just tell the truth?

The only thing they're proving is that they are afraid of any evidence not forced into an evolutionary pigeon-hole. I can only imagine the terror and fury if textbooks were published with a chapter on all of evolution's bountiful discrepancies and the data on the fossils was given without any explanations as to how they supposedly fit into some evolutionary tree.

Science is fine and well as long as it is honest. Our society is in drastic trouble at the rate we're going, however. If science is unwilling and unable to present simple data to students uncolored by philosophical interpretation and prejudicial bias then all we have done is created generations of people who can't think for themselves without science's help.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home