Thursday, April 21, 2005

Don't Let Them Call You a Monkey!

Even as I’m writing this, a friend of mine is busy informing me, “Wow, you’re making too many! You’re going to run out of stuff to write about!”
Well, I’ve got news for you nay-sayers out there: I’m not going to run out of material. The evolutionists have dug themselves a hole with a diameter that rivals the sun’s, and with all of the false information that they’ve put out to the public, it’d take me thirty years and about 1x10^137,976 articles to put it straight (anyone recognize that number?). And only on column three, so this friend of mine can chill out… and anyone else thinking I write too much.
Speaking of false information, I’ve just been through yet another debate on evolution with students, and still does the old adage hold true: my opponents (multiple opponents, I had to hold my own this time… not that it was difficult, my opponents knew little or nothing about their belief) attacked my religion. I thought about giving them my website address- http://www.reasonandlogic.blogspot.com/, by the way (check it out for columns old and new)- and the reasoned that if they didn’t take the time to research their own theory, why research mine?
I find it exceedingly interesting that few students who believe in evolution have the slightest idea of what it is. When I requested the slightest bit of evidence from my most recent opponents, their collective response was, “Look in the biology book.” This is shortly after stating that evolution had been indisputably proven due to the “vast amount of evidence we’ve found.” I see it as a little ironic that they could not pull a single bit of data from their minds, seeing as there is supposed this vast accumulation of purported evidence.
In any case, they had, before any of this, decided to bring up a very interesting point in the slaughterhouse know as evolutionary “debate.” See, I was in my US History class when the Scopes trial arose as part of the lecture. The teacher asked us what we thought about evolution being taught in school, and a classmate brought up the old argument “religion should be taught by parents, and science by school.” His idea was that religion was taught at church, so why couldn’t evolution be taught in school?
Ever have I been dumbfounded by the sheer stupidity of that statement. It’s so incongruous that when I first heard it, I assumed that individual was a moron and didn’t think to ever hear again, so you could imagine my surprise every time that blatantly foolish statement decides to impinge upon my ears…for those of you who’ve no logical thinking processes, I’ll tell you why. Despite its simplicity, don’t doubt its validity:
Church is optional, public school is mandatory.
Wow. I know that’s a tough one to wrap your mind around, but I’m going to encourage you to try. Look, not to get too deep here, but there are people… yes, I know this will come as a shock to you, but there are people who don’t go to church. Whose parents’ beliefs are in the line of evolution and hate Christ. I know that’s a shock.
Hold on, I’ve got a couple more really deep metaphysical concepts for you to grasp here: public school is mandatory, other than those who go to a private school. And private schools often teach evolution as well, even a few Christian schools, believe it or not. I went to a military school- Fishburne Military School- last year, and they taught evolution, so don’t give me the “it’s only public school” crap. Besides, it’s easy to say more kids go to public school than private anyway…
Once again; church is optional, pubic school is mandatory.
I’m thinking there’s an awe-inspiring gap between a religion that you choose to be a part of and a place where a theory is force-fed to you, whether you like it or not, and if you write to the contrary, you pay for it with your grade. Now, maybe it’s just me, but I think that there’s a tremendous difference here.
Needless to say, I swiftly ended that argument.
But in doing so, managed to start another, because the when I phrasing this, I couldn’t help but add in that evolution is “scientifically baseless.” So even as I was delivering the metaphorical coup de grace to my opponent in one argument, another classmate spoke up: “Wait, wait! Did you just say that evolution is scientifically baseless? Then what about ‘Lucy’ and all that other crap?” Then the speaker continued to look proud of himself as I said “Lucy is crap,” in the nicest tones I could manage. Indeed, however; what about Lucy?
Try to remember that an asterisk (*) by a name indicates the person being a non-Creationist.
Lucy, one of the most recent of the Australopithecus finds, was unearthed by *Donald C. Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1975. He dated it at 3 million years B.P. [Before Present]. In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, *Johanson said that "Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man" (*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810). In 1981, he said that she was "embarrassingly un-Homo like" (Science 81, 2(2):53-55). Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a braincase size the same as that of a chimp—450 cc. and "was surprisingly short legged" (*Time, November 7, 1979, pp. 68-69).
*Dr. Yves Coppens, appearing on BBC-TV in 1982, stated that Lucy’s skull was like that of an ape.
In 1983, *Jeremy Cherfas said that Lucy’s ankle bone (talus) tilts backward like a gorilla, instead of forward as in human beings who need it so to walk upright, and concluded that the differences between her and human beings are "unmistakable" (*J. Cherfas, New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]).
*Susman and *Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and "she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys" (Bible Science Newsletter, 1982, p. 4).
Several scientists have decided that the bones of Lucy come from two different sources. Commenting on this, *Peter Andrews, of the British Museum of Natural History, said this:
"To complicate matters further, some researchers believe that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."—*Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).
Regarding those knee joints, *Owen Lovejoy, *Richard Leakey’s highly qualified associate (an anatomist), declared at a 1979 lecture in the United States that a multivariate analysis of Lucy’s knee joints revealed her to be an ape
So whether Lucy’s bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes.
*Johanson’s theory about Lucy is based on an assumption linking two fossils 1,000 miles [1,609 km] apart:
"Although the Lucy fossils were initially dated at three million years, *Johanson had announced them as 3.5 million because he said the species was ‘the same’ as a skull found by *Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. By proposing *Mary Leakey’s find as the ‘type specimen’ for Australopithecus afarensis, he was identifying Lucy with another fossil 1,000 miles [1,609 km] from the Afar [in northern Ethiopia] and half a million years older! *Mary thought the two not at all the same and refused to have any part of linking her specimen with [*Johanson’s] afarensis . . She announced that she strongly resented Johanson’s ‘appropriating’ her find, her reputation and the older date to lend authority to Lucy. Thus began the bitter, persistent feud between Johanson and the Leakeys."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 285.
*Johanson, himself, finally decided that Lucy was only an ape.
"Johanson himself originally described the fossils as Homo, a species of man, but soon after changed his mind based on the assessment of his colleague, Tim White. They now describe the bones as too ape-like in the jaws, teeth and skull to be considered Homo, yet also sufficiently distinct from other, later australopithecines to warrant their own species."—*Ibid.
Mehlert sums it up.
"The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The ‘evidence’ for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing."—A.W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.
Why, the normal person might ask, would we be told that “Lucy” is an actual piece of evidence? Could it be that the schools are lying to us? That scientists are lying to us! I tell you, Esteemed Reader, to doubt it not, they are! So, boys and girls, when the school starts crowing its favorite ‘scientific’ theory, remember: don’t let them call you a monkey!
But if the evolutionists want to be monkeys, feel free to let them. And feel free to let me know what you think of this column, by emailing me at ca1ne@hotmail.com. And check out both my site (mentioned at the top of the article), and www.evolution-facts.org, to which I credit the 'Lucy' information.

3 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

you know what you are one of those crazy people. white people evolved from monkeys and black people came from gorillas, so you are the one who needs to get your facts straight

7:38 PM  
Blogger Tony said...

I've really enjoyed reading your blog. Very interesting.

My biology news article site has lots of info pertaining to biology news article.

Come visit sometime :)

6:14 AM  
Blogger Tony said...

I've really enjoyed reading your blog. Very interesting.

My biology news article site has lots of info pertaining to biology news article.

Come visit sometime :)

5:42 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home