http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=2784
Ardi Joins a Long, Infamous List of Losers
If it were not so serious, the situation would be comical. Every few
months a media blitz raves about a new “half-and-half” creature that is
unlike anything ever seen. Supposedly, tiny features about this novel
beast give modern humans cutting-edge insights into how primate
ancestors evolved into us. The incisors are larger or smaller than most
apes, the cranium has a bigger (or smaller) capacity, the tiny toe bone
fragments offer amazing information about how the creature walked on all
fours most of the time, except when it was being chased by a specific
kind of predator on Tuesdays in the Fall, the small scraps of finger
bones tell us that the creature swung from branches for the majority of
its life, except for brief periods of time when it descended to the
ground to walk upright for elaborate mating rituals that occurred once
every 10 years during the Summer equinox, etc. And we know all this from
bone fragments that are supposedly millions of years old.
The troubling thing about this whole scenario is that no matter how
many times creationists prove it to be false, and no matter how many
times specific “creatures” like Piltdown Man, Lucy, or Ida are
discredited, people continue to be shaken in their belief in the Bible
by every “latest” find. With each new creature, frantic readers contact
their favorite Christian apologists and demand that this new find must
be answered within two days, or the Genesis account of creation is going
to be jeopardized and its validity seriously compromised. It is as if
the history of the numerous evolutionary foibles is forgotten by the
masses every time the media adopts another evolutionary poster child.
The remedy to this is simple. Let us all stop, take a deep breath, and
systematically go through a few of the reasons why the “latest find” is
nothing more or less than all the other evolutionary “breakthroughs”
that have gone before it. First, the entire concept of any life arising
from non-living chemicals through random, evolutionary processes has
been proven to be scientifically impossible (
Thompson,
1989). Every legitimate experiment that has been done for the entirety
of human history that has any bearing on the subject has shown that in
the natural Universe, life comes only from previously existing life of
its own kind. No research team has ever found an evolutionary link
between humans and lower animals for the simple, yet profound reason,
that evolution is
impossible and humans
could not evolve
from lower life forms. Furthermore, specific human traits, such as
consciousness, sexual reproduction, varying blood types, spoken
language, and the complexity of the human brain, pose insurmountable
barriers to the false theory of human evolution (see Harrub and
Thompson, 2003).
Second, the dating methods that are used to render “accurate” dates of
millions of years are fraught with irreconcilable difficulties that
prove them to be useless (see DeYoung, 2005; Snelling, n.d.; Morris,
1994). In truth, the evolutionary community concocts whatever dates it
wants, jettisons any that do not match its preconceived notions, and
massages dates arbitrarily. Numerous fossil finds have supposedly added
hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary time, even though the
rejected time frame was “known” to be accurate (see
Butt, 2005;
Butt, 2006;
Butt,
2008a). When an article begins with a statement like, “4.4 million
years ago...,” it might as well be saying, “Once upon a time in a galaxy
far, far away....” Accurate dating methods that render dates in the
millions do not exist.
Third, how many alleged human ancestors must be debunked before the
world views these false evolutionary claims with appropriate
incredulity. Chapters one and two of the Apologetics Press book
The Truth About Human Origins deals definitively with
Aegyptopithecus
Zeuxis, Dryopithicus africanus, Ramapithesu brevirostris, Orrorin
tugenensis, Australopithecus ramidus, Australopithicus anamensis,
Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, Kenyanthropus platyops, Lucy
, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthals, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Java Man, and Rhodesian Man (2003). In addition, Hobbit Man has been debunked (see
Harrub, 2004;
Harrub, 2005) and “Lucy’s Baby” is no longer viable (see Harrub, 2006).
In more recent news, a lemur fossil named Ida was hailed as not just “a
discovery of great significance” (“The Link,” 2009), but the “
most significant scientific discovery of recent times” (Leonard, 2009, emp. added). Some scientists claimed that it would “finally confirm
irrefutably
Sir Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution” (Leonard, emp. added). Dr.
Jens Lorenz Franzen of Senckenberg Research Institute in Germany
referred to it as “the eighth wonder of the world” (as quoted in Scally,
2009), and confidently proclaimed: “When our results are published, it
will be just like an asteroid hitting the Earth” (“The Link”). Google
was so enamored with the find that on May 20, 2009 the search engine
mogul incorporated an illustration of the animal into its logo. So what
was all the hoopla about? “Our earliest ancestor,” of course (“The
Link”). At least, that is what some evolutionists and their friends in
the media were telling everyone, until these claims were reduced to
ashes by opponents within the evolutionary camp (see
Lyons and Butt, 2009;
Lyons, 2009b;
Butt, 2009).
Enter the most recent newcomer to the long list of evolutionary
losers—Ardi. Just five months after Ida—“the most significant scientific
discovery of recent times, the eighth wonder of the world, our earliest
ancestor”—we are introduced to Ardi—“the closest we have ever come” to
the common ancestor we allegedly share with chimps (see Schmid, 2009).
Ardi supposedly takes human evolution back to 4.4 million years ago. It
is hyped as so significant that the journal
Science contains 11 papers on it in the October, 2009 edition. David Pilbeam boldly stated: “This is one of
the most important discoveries
for the study of human evolution” (as quoted in Schmid, 2009, emp.
added). Sounds remarkably like the announcement of Ida. Sample said
“experts have described the find as the most important regarding human
evolution in the past century” (2009). Amazing how quickly the “eighth
wonder of the world” was replaced by Ardi.
One of the ironies surrounding Ardi’s heralded success is that if the
evolutionary community was right in 2001, then our newest Ardi is much
less significant than an earlier Ardi. You see, in the July 23, 2001
issue of
Time, staff writers Michael Lemonick and Andrea Dorman introduced their readers to
Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba. Supposedly, “Ardi”
kadabba
lived between 5.2 and 5.8 million years ago, more than a million years
before the current reigning media champion. Furthermore,
kadabba
allegedly evolved “very close to the time when humans and chimps first
went their separate ways” (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 29-33). In
addition,
kadabba “almost certainly walked upright” according to the evolutionists who wrote about the find. We still have the bones of
kadabba that were displayed in
Time.
So why are we not still hearing about this unprecedented evolutionary
victory? For the simple reason that it is not the “Johnny-come-lately”
that can generate media hype.
The latest reports of the 4.4 million-year-old Ardi are standard,
run-of-the-mill, evolutionary propaganda that lack scientific integrity
and, more basically, a foundation of truth. Already, we are being
treated to “qualifying” statements such as, “it may take years to
confirm exactly where Ardi fits in the history of human evolution”
(Sample, 2009). Yale paleontologist Andrew Hill said: “We thought Lucy
was the find of the century but, in retrospect, it isn’t” (as quoted in
Sample). Would that we could fast-forward a few years (or a few weeks as
in Ida’s case) and see what discrediting remarks Ardi will elicit “in
retrospect.” In addition, the stories being spun are already
contradictory. For instance, Schmid says that Ardi’s anatomy shows that
“the development of their arms and legs indicates that
they didn’t spend much time in the trees” (2009, emp. added). While, on the other hand, Sample stated: “Though Ardi
would have spent much of her time in the trees, her pelvis was adapted to walking upright...” (2009, emp. added).
In other places, we have documented admissions from evolutionists,
showing examples of the fabrication and exaggeration so prevalent in the
field of evolutionary paleontology (see
Butt, 2008b;
Lyons,
2009a). And a close look at paleontological efforts to find “human
ancestors” offers some keen insight into why we are treated to a new
“relative” every few months. After all, Ardi was discovered in 1992.
Following the original find, “a total of 47 researchers then spent a
further 15 years removing, preparing and studying each of the fragments”
(Sample, 2009). Somehow the paleontological world must justify spending
705 man-years of research on Ardi. So instead of calling it what it
truly is, an ape, they are forced to justify their prodigal, vain years
of research by claiming that they have stumbled upon the latest,
greatest “wonder of the world.” Oh, that thinking people would have the
wisdom to view Ardi, and all similar outlandish evolutionary claims, in
light of real scientific facts. How many Lucys, Hobbits, Piltdowns,
Nebraskas, and Idas will it take for people to see what is happening
here? Add Ardi to the ever-growing heap of dead-ends piled high in the
mass grave of alleged human evolution.
REFERENCES
Butt, Kyle (2005), “Reconsideration of Many Long-standing Assumptions,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2769.
Butt, Kyle (2006), “One Little Beaver Demolishes a Hundred Million Years,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2878.
Butt, Kyle (2008a), “Complex Jellies Jump 200 Million Years,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3580.
Butt, Kyle (2008b), “‘So We Make Up Stories’ About Human Evolution,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3641.
Butt, Kyle (2009), “Following Up on a Messy, and Still Missing, Link,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240171.
DeYoung, Don (2005),
Thousands...Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Harrub, Brad and Bert Thompson (2003),
The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).
Harrub, Brad (2004), “Hobbit Heresy,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2641.
Harrub, Brad (2005), “Hobbit Hubbub,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/703.
Harrub, Brad (2006), “Lucy’s Baby?”.
Leonard, Tom (2009), “Scientists Unveil Stunning Fossil,”
Telegraph, [On-line],
URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5351315/Scientists-unveil-stunning-fossil.html.
“The Link” (2009), [On-line],
URL: http://www.revealingthelink.com/.
Lyons, Eric (2009a), “Confessed Conjectures and Contradictions of Paleoartists,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240213.
Lyons, Eric (2009b), “Ida, One More Time,” [On-line]:
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240233.
Lyons, Eric and Kyle Butt (2009), “Ida—A Missing Link?,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240160.
Morris, John D. (1994),
The Young Earth (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).
Sample, Ian (2009), “Fossil Ardi Reveals the First Steps of the Human Race,”
The Guardian, [On-line],
URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/oct/01/fossil-ardi-human-race.
Scally, Derek (2009), “Fossil Ida a Crucial Finding for the Understanding of Early Human Evolution,”
Irish Times, May 21, [On-line],
URL: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0521/1224247034331.html.
Schmid, Randolf (2009), “Before Lucy Came Ardi, New Earliest Hominid Found,” [On-line],
URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091001/ap_on_sc/us_sci_before_lucy.
Snelling, Andrew (no date), “The Fallacies of Radioactive Dating of Rocks: Basalt Lava Flows in Grand Canyon,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/radioactive-dating.
Thompson, Bert (1989), “The Bible and the Laws of Science: The Law of Biogenesis,” [On-line],
URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2004.
For
many years in the United States, Christian families and public
education seemed to go hand in hand. The vast majority of American
families happily identified themselves as “Christian,” and they gladly
sent their children to public schools to learn reading, writing, and
arithmetic. In the 1800s and the early 1900s, many US students also
learned as much (or more) about the Bible in school as they did at home.
The Creator was unashamedly recognized. The Word of God was frequently
quoted. Jesus was identified as man’s Savior. The six days of Creation
were taught as fact. The Ten Commandments were read. Immorality was
rebuked. Disrespectfulness was swiftly punished. Public education was
not perfect, but, overall, it was many times more wholesome and
Christian-family friendly than what we see in much of the country today.
Famed atheist and New York Times bestselling author Sam Harris published a book in 2010 titled The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values.
In the book he attempted to show that atheistic materialism can provide
a standard by which to judge moral behavior. He failed to prove his
point, as we have shown in other places (