Welcome to the home of "The Question Evolution Project". There is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution. Evidence refuting evolution is suppressed by the scientific establishment, which is against the true spirit of scientific inquiry. Using an unregistered assault keyboard, articles and links to creation science resources are presented so people can obtain evidence that is not materialistic propaganda. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Friday, September 16, 2016

Anthropologist Trippin' Out with Lucy

Advocates of atoms-to-Australopithecus evolution are great at telling tall tales and asserting opinions as facts, followed by the sensation-seeking press giving their stories credibility. Go to a museum to see Lucy, and you won't get the whole story. However, you'll see displays with the ape having very human-looking eyes, standing upright, and more. The rest of the story about how the bones were found scattered over a wide area (which should make anyone mighty suspicious), how not all the bones are found, disputes in the scientific community — you don't hear that so much. But if you deny that this was our ancestor, some atheists get mighty riled.


There's already a great deal of speculation (as well as outright fiction) passed along as fact regarding "Lucy" as our evolutionary ancestor. Things are getting more outlandish, and the science press is right there to support nonsense.
Australopithecus afarensis ("Lucy") public domain image
I suspicion that one of the hands at the Darwin Ranch has been into the peyote buttons or something. He had a vision of Lucy falling out of a tree, poor dear, and that might explain some of the fracture marks in the bones. Uh huh. Other evolutionists aren't buying the fantasy, though. But who pays this guy, and why? The science press goes with the unproven assertion that this ape was our ancestor, maybe that has something to do with it. What lengths people will go to for the sake of denying that we were created, and evolution had nothing to do with it.
Tell a tale, get media attention: did Lucy fall out of a tree, or did paleoanthropologists fall off an empirical limb?

“Lucy” serves a storytelling purpose. By giving a certain fossil a name, whether Lucy or Australopithecus (“southern ape”), Donald Johanson launched a storytelling empire. The interpretation of her bones continues to arouse debate between scientists, but the media love her. She is a folk hero around whom endless fables can be spun.

The latest fable is that she fell out of a tree. The media mostly treat this as a new fact, not an interpretation. It also gives them another opportunity to pound the drum of human ancestry from apes. Watch the level of certainty grow, while the meme about ancestry is constant:
To read the rest, swing on over to "Human Evolutionists Fall Out of Their Science Tree".

Labels