|
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.
|
|
 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!
|