ne97PoPxq8Q

Well, I want to introduce our guest speaker. Many of you remember him from last fall when we were over in the smaller building. And tonight, Hans Menardis joins us again with his family, Autumn, and his daughter Edie, are here. So make sure y'all welcome. They come from the great East Texas metropolis of Grapeland.

Who knows where Grapeland is? Would it be right to say it's a suburb of Crockett? Maybe not. That area over there. Hans Menardis is the executive director of Frontier Camp, and the Lord saw fit to bring us back together. Hans and I were in the Cadet Corps here at Texas AM, well, let's just say several decades ago.

And Hans had a career as a geologist in the oil and gas industry for a few years before the Lord called him to full-time Christian service, and he began working at Frontier Camp, where, let me tell you, they have built a wonderful place for families to make some great memories.

The Lord saw fit to bring Hans and us together when my son Matthew and I, as well as John and Langston, went over there for a father-son weekend about 10 or 11 years ago and kept going back. Great memories. I just want to encourage you, they've got lots of activities, not only summer camps, but family camps, father-son, mother-daughter.

Google Frontier Camp. I'm sure Hans may speak a little bit about it tonight. But Hans approaches the subject of creation through not only the eyes of a geologist, a scientist, but also through the lens of a biblical worldview. So tonight he's going to give us a good, accurate, true biblical view of creation, which I'm sure will bless all of you.

Come on up here, Hans, and thanks for coming tonight. And with that, I'll just turn it over to him. Thank you, Russ. Well, since I'm here, let me say howdy. I'm home. So, in my capacity as executive director at Frontier Camp, I get to do a lot of traveling.

I do a lot of recruiting for campers. And I go to different venues, and I get to talk to anything from public schools to homeschool co-ops and big groups of kids, children's churches at metropolitan churches all over Texas, both the Metroplex, DFW, and Houston. And invariably, when I ask this question, well, let me start this way: if you're 12 and under, you get to answer this question out loud altogether, okay?

So that rarely happens in church, does it? So you get to use your outside voice inside for just a second. All right? So here's a question: Are you an animal? Are you an animal? Anybody? Everybody? Very good. So I have a no. Excellent. The reason that I start this way is because in most venues with a large collection of kids, when their parents are not there, okay, as part of the equation, the resounding answer is yes.

Isn't that interesting? And then, depending on the venue, like if it's a children's church, there are some kids in the back, they're like, wait a minute, I'm in church. No? And then somebody will yell out, we're mammals, which is the way that scientists classify us, right? And so this evening, as we go through this time together, let me quickly set your expectations.

Usually, when I teach the Bible, I like to teach expositorily. You're not going to get an expository message on a text today. This is a seminar. I'm going to give you a seminar on a biblical world view of the image of God within us, because we are not animals.

We are special creations made in God's image. And so that has some ramifications. And as a scientist, as a geologist, I've always been interested in fossils. And so the question before us tonight is basically this. We have been told by the popular culture and by our science classes that humans evolved.

So that is in direct opposition with what is contained in our Bible if we read it literally. I'm an Aggie, so I'm going to press this button right here and hope that that's the advanced button. Ah, wow. All right. By the way, if I point at the screen like that, just remind me that y'all are actually looking at these screens, okay?

All right. So in 1 Corinthians, let's start in Genesis, okay? Genesis 1. In fact, if you'll turn in your Bibles, this is the way we're going to start, is we're actually going to open our Bibles, okay? And then we're going to talk a little bit about science and hopefully bring all this back around at the very end.

Genesis chapter 1, very famous passage. You should have this memorized. This is on day 5. The Godhead is having a conversation, okay? And the conversation is between the Father, the Son, who is the agent, the power of God. In the way that he's creating, because, okay, so I'm going to be involving the kids, okay?

Because I see some kids out in the audience. How did God create? Did he use a hammer and chisel, chainsaw? Did he have like a Play-Doh press? And He just, how did God create? He, yeah, He spoke. So what did He use when He spoke? Words, okay? So thinking back to John chapter 1: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

So Jesus is the agent, the power, the vehicle, the summation of the creation, the way that God created, was Jesus Christ. And then the Holy Spirit was there as well. And so here's what we read: Verse 26: Then God said, Let us, okay, that's not a royal we there.

Let us make man in our image according to our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. God created man in his own image.

In the image of God, he created him, male and female, he created them. So the image of God has its reflection in a binary. Yes, it's really a binary. Male and female from the beginning. So then let's turn to Mark chapter 10, just in case you have a friend who says, oh, that's the Old Testament.

That's just allegory. A nice poem teaches us a little bit about a temple narrative right there at the beginning, but that's just in the imagination of the Jewish scribes who are trying to kind of build a national identity. That's kind of what modern liberal scholarship holds nowadays. Mark chapter 9, excuse me, 10.

This is, who is this, by the way, speaking here? Yeah, in my Bible, it's red letters, right? By the way, this is all red letters. But this happens to be some words that Jesus spoke while he was here on the earth. And it says this: But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female.

Okay? So Jesus is a young earth creationist, just in case you're wondering. Okay? And he also believes in the image of God being bestowed on a male and a female together right there in the beginning. And then finally, the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. You'll Turn there with me.

This is a really interesting passage in the context of a resurrection body. Because the argument is, to understand Paul, you have to kind of think of Paul writing, and in his mind, in his imagination, there's always an objector. There's always a skeptic in the room who jumps up and asks questions that Paul then answers.

And so he's answering a question here. Verse 35 is the question, but someone will say, How are the dead raised? And with what kind of body do they come? 36, you fool. That which you sow does not come to life unless it dies. And that which you sow, you do not sow the body which is to be, but a bare grain, perhaps of wheat or something else.

But God gives it a body, just as he wished, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. Very interesting. Here's the passage. All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one flesh of men and another flesh of beasts, and another flesh of birds and another of fish.

Wow. So in Paul's paradigm, men are separated from the animal kingdom, from beasts, birds, and fish. So what I'm going to... Cover now is a direct opposition to that biblical worldview that is being taught in popular culture today and in science. And so, as we go through this, one of the things I want, I want to give you some information that will help bolster your faith.

There is no such thing as a silver bullet when we talk about the clash of world views. Everything at the bottom line is taken on faith. But as we go through this tonight, what I want to leave you with is that our faith is rational. It is logical because it's true.

And so, if we actually have the truth in our hands, then we don't need to be afraid of science, specifically the popular presentation of science, because at the end of the day, what we're looking at is an evangelistic effort to try to have you change your worldview based on propaganda.

And so, that's what I'm going to counteract today. And hopefully, you can see here toward the end that what you're seeing in our popular culture is not just an unbiased, you know, science. Has this reputation of being neutral. Okay? And nobody is neutral. Everybody is operating out of a worldview.

And the worldview that I'm going to describe today is counter to God's truth. And you need to be armed to be able to defend your faith. That's what Peter tells us in 1 Peter 3.15, right? Be ready to defend your faith in gentleness and in reverence. And by the way, you're never going to be able to argue anyone into the kingdom of heaven, right?

People's spiritual eyesight are only going to be opened if the Holy Spirit opens them. But a lot of people use this subject here to build a shield and say, I am not going to pay attention to any of this because I know that human evolution is true. And so as we walk through this today, this is the question on the table.

Is there actually evidence for human evolution in the fossil record? And that's what we're going to talk about today. Okay? So we're going to start with high school tech books. And this is a common example. It's a little bit dated, but that information hasn't changed. This is a high school biology textbook.

And it says, look closely at your hand. You have five flexible fingers. Animals with five flexible fingers are called primates, monkeys, apes, and humans are examples of primates. What are they saying there? Humans are animals. Okay, that's what they're saying. And the next statement is that primates most likely evolved from small insect-eating rodent-like mammals that lived about 60 million years ago.

So there's the start. And what we have then is this story that about 6 million years ago in Africa, that there was a divergence between from what they call the LCA. So the LCA is the last common ancestor. The LCA is the last primate that was both ape-like and human that then split into a line that led to the chimpanzees and the other branch supposedly led to humans.

And so there's this progression. There are transitional fossils supposedly that show this split from the last common ancestor to Homo sapiens, which is what we are today. By the way, do they have the fossil of the last common ancestor? No. When you look at a tree of life, and we'll be looking at some today, the last common ancestor is labeled as a hypothetical fossil.

Okay? But it is a thing, even though. By the way, we have hypothetical facts nowadays. So let's start with this. How many of you Seen some sort of a representation of this before. Okay, let me tell you this: this is probably the most iconic graphic of the modern era.

This is known as the March of Progress. It originally came out in 1965 in the Time Life book Early Man, and it has been reprinted and reprinted and repackaged and resold. And basically, what you see there is what has been sold to you, Hook, Line, and Sinker as fact.

And so, the popular culture digest this, and it just has become so iconic and so prevalent that people don't even question human evolution anymore because they have this in their mind. But if you look at the text in this book, there are two things that the author says, or the illustrator.

The first one is that in this lineup, and the original was much, much bigger, okay, so there are a lot of more figures in that lineup. He said, first of all, not all of the figures in the lineup were upright. I just drew them upright so that you could compare sizes.

And then the second thing that came out in the small print of That book was that this figure was for illustrative purposes only because they exist only in the imagination of the illustrator. Okay? So, in actuality, is there fossil evidence that shows a progression like this from ostropithecus?

Ah, that's a hard one to say, isn't it? Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo sapiens. That's the standard story, a very linear one. And this is what everyone believes now because the picture shows it. Okay? So, we're going to start in the late 1800s, 1891. Charles Darwin, Charlie Darwin, has just published his book, which was mistitled On the Origin of Species, because he actually didn't cover that part in his book.

But that launched this huge search for the missing link. Okay? So, what is the missing link? Yeah, it's so a missing link is something that shows the transition between an ape-like creature and modern humans. And so, the operative word in that phrase is missing. Was missing back then, okay?

But it was a link. And people who philosophically were liberated by Darwin's theory of natural selection and evolution knew that the link was out there and they wanted to unmiss it. Okay? And so a guy named Dubois found this in Indonesia, on the island of Java. He found a skull cap, he found a tooth, and he found a femur.

And voila, it was claimed to be an ape man. And it was a great big discovery, heralded all over the scientific world, except not everybody accepted it at face value. And so one of the paleontologists at the time, who's a pathologist, said, that thigh bone looks to me like it's a gibbon.

And the skull cap looks human. So it's probably a composite animal. In 1908, in 1912, in the English countryside, an agriculturalist brought a fossil set to the British Museum of Natural History. History. And it was a huge, huge deal. It was a portion of a human skull and a portion of a lower ape-like jaw, and it was put into the Museum of Natural History as the missing link.

It was known as Piltdown Man. It was claimed to be 500,000-year-old intermediate link. Well, I think it was in 1950 that the scientists looked at this two sets of fossils in the case and said, you know what? We haven't really put that under any kind of scientific study yet.

So they did, and guess what? After the New York Times, by the way, we believe everything we read in the New York Times, right? Ran an article, Darwin's Theory Proven True, and it was featured in textbooks and encyclopedias. In 1953, it was discovered that the skull cap was a 600-year-old man and the jawbone was an even more modern jaw, and someone had taken a file and filed the teeth flat and stained it with tea.

Okay, so it was quietly removed from the British Museum of Natural History. And it's a known fraud now. Everyone knows it's a fraud. So let me ask you a question. Why was it allowed to sit in the museum as the missing link exhibit A for that long? Without question.

They wanted it to be true. Exactly. People see what they want to see. And we see this over and over again. Even scientists are biased. And when they find something that confirms what they believe, it's called confirmation bias, they are very, very loath to question and to be skeptical about these finds.

So, 1922, fast forward, there is a fossil discovered in Nebraska. It was entered as evidence in the 1925 Scopes trial, which is a famous trial where evolution was put on trial in Tennessee. And the claim was that it was a one million-year-old intermediate link, but shortly after that trial, further study, it was found to be an extinct pig's tooth.

So in that trial, we had an entire human missing link built on a tooth. Okay? But it changed the culture that trial did, and this fossil did. In the 1930s, some jaw fragments and some teeth were discovered, and in 1977, the discovery was put forth in Time magazine.

Here's what Time magazine said: Ramopithecus is structured to be an ancestor of the hominids. If he isn't, we don't have anything else that is. So, what does that tell you right there? How are we doing on evidence for human evolution so far? This is 1977 now. Some of you were alive then.

I was. I was in seventh grade. What does that tell you about the evidence for human evolution to this point? That's it. Right there on the screen. See that gray thing right there? That's the fossil evidence for human evolution. Right there. Impressive, is it? It's 14 million-year-old intermediate between ape-like creatures and humans.

However, it was soon discovered that a baboon in Ethiopia had the same dental structure and the same morphological features, and quietly, Ramopithecus left the building as part of the line of human evolution. Then we get. Well, let's summarize what we've gotten. So, this is old, okay? This is old data.

So, if you grew up in the 80s and 90s, you probably have already heard this. So, Java man, two different creatures, Piltdown Man, hoax, Nebraska man, pig, Ramopithecus, a true ape. How are we doing, by the way, if we're playing baseball? We wouldn't get to the World Series, would we?

Okay, now in the flow of scientific data, in the late 1800s, there was a find in the Neanderthal Valley, and those bones were named after the place they were found. And originally, when this fossil find was first reported, this was the drawing right here. Does this thing have a laser?

That was not it. Oh, here it is right here. Okay, this is the first scientific illustration of Neanderthal Man. Notice, head jutted forward, so the spine is not underneath the skull, it's joined to the back of the skull. Hunched appearance, bent knees, very long arms. Got a club, right?

Y'all know what happens with that club, right? They rent cars. Constructed to look very ape-like. The problem was that one of the evolutionary tactics to classify fossils is to look at brain case capacity. And so the paradigm is that the smaller the brain case, the more primitive. And yet, from a medical standpoint, that is not actually borne out by the intelligence data that we have.

We have some humans with very small brain cases alive today that are very, very, very intelligent. A lot smarter than I am. And so the range of human brain cases, very, very large range. But the Neanderthal brain case, in average, was about 200 cc larger than a normal modern human today.

So some other scientists got a hold of those bones and they said, hmm, I think that drawing is a little bit biased, so they drew something that looks a little bit more like this. Does this look a little bit more like a human being? Yeah. Here's some other things that we found out over the years of looking at Neanderthals.

Jewelry. They had jewelry. They used Neanderthals. Musical instruments. The oldest pipe flute found in the world is a Neanderthal antler bone that has holes bored in, and they did a reconstruction of it, and it has a tonal scale. They painted in caves. They had speech and they buried their dead.

Now, I have a friend who's passed away, but his name was Dr. Jack Quazo. And he was an orthodontist, and he had a portable radar, not a radar, a portable x-ray machine. And he took it to Europe and went and studied different Neanderthal fossils. And they didn't realize he was a creationist, so they let him.

So he took this portable x-ray machine in, and he would ask the museums for their fossils, and he would x-ray them. And one of the things that he found was that in one museum here, this is a graphic that the museum had on a postcard, and they had this fossil on display.

And he noticed when he x-rayed it that the mandible fit right where it's supposed to be. When he got the skull, he actually had to rearrange it because the museum had reconstructed it like this. Isn't that interesting? So, one of the traits of a human is that they have flat faces.

Because that helps with bipedalism. And so, if you want to make a human appear more ape-like, you just thrust the jaw forward and you lose the flat face. So, what do you call this? I don't know. Is that an honest mistake by a lab technician that's reconstructing a fossil for a museum?

Or is it propaganda? I'm going to submit that if the person didn't know this, they shouldn't be working in fossil reconstruction. Right? That's pretty obvious. So, here's the conclusion about Neanderthals. I'll just give you the bottom line. First of all, their range in terms of when they lived overlaps modern humans.

And get this: if you're a Caucasian, you carry 1 to 4% of their DNA in you. Okay? So, let me ask you something. Neanderthals for years have been touted as the missing link, as subhuman, as something prior to Homo sapiens, lower on the evolutionary ladder, a different species.

So, everybody put on their biology hats for a second. What's the biological definition of species? They can't interbreed, right? They are genetically distinct because they don't interbreed. So, if we're carrying DNA of Neanderthals around in us, Sherlock, what does that mean? The Neanderthals in modern humans interbred, which means that we are the same species.

So, in truth, Neanderthals are just another family of humans. It's just another tribe. And Dr. Jack Quazo posited from his x-rays that the Neanderthals that had very prominent brow ridges were just really, really old individuals based on their teeth structure and based on the skeletal formation, because your face continues to grow as you get older.

Okay? That's why, you know, my ears are getting bigger. That's why my core of cadet hat doesn't fit on my cranium anymore. Okay? Like, I thought I could do that, and I must have been a pinhead when I was in college. So, Neanderthals are 100% human. And by the way, this is well known now.

When you reconstruct them, and there's reconstructions, you can open your browser anytime and type in Neanderthal, and you'll find all sorts of reconstructions coming out of Europe. That looks like your neighbor, doesn't it? All right, Homo erectus. This is now we're getting a little bit more into what was found in the 60s and 70s, big splashes, big media hype.

And Homo erectus was supposedly like 1.9 million years. By the way, do y'all remember where I said the split happened? How many years, millions of years ago do they think the split happened? Six million. Okay? So, by the way, I don't believe any of those dates. We'll talk about dating some other time.

All the teenagers went, what? He said dating. Dating rocks. Okay? So 1.9 million years. And the problem is, is that as they dig more, they find more fossils. And now in Australia, there are erectus-type fossils that are dated to 10,000 years ago. The most complete fossil of erectus is known as Turcana Boy.

And that is not a picture of Turcana Boy. I'm not sure what happened to my slide there, but I had a picture of him. And from the neck down, that skeleton is identical to a group of a tribal group that live in Somalia. They're herdsmen. They're really tall.

Okay? And from the neck up, this skull has some very, very different morphology that is a very small cranium. Okay? In fact, it's so identical from the neck down to a modern Somali that the bishop, the Catholic bishop in charge of that region, asked the museum to take it off the display because he said it was sacrilegious.

So here is the sum total of the Homo erectus skulls that we have. That's not actually four rows of skulls. It's two rows from the front and the same two rows from the side. So what do you notice here? Well, first of all, there's a whole lot of variation in the morphology.

I mean, this looks nothing like that. That has, you know, and look at this guy. Look at his brow ridge. So what we have here is kind of a wastebasket. This is not text, the taxonomy here is all over the map. So, basically, what we see here is a lot of weird skull growth.

There's brow ridges that are high, brow ridges that are low, brow ridges that are tilted. Some don't have any brow ridges at all. This guy here, I'm not sure what you know, what's happening with him. So, when you look at these fossils and you turn the machine back on, one of the things that you notice is that people see what they want to see.

The paleoanthropologists tend to be splitters. So, in science, there are lumpers and there are splitters. And so, when you find a fossil, if you're a lumper, you try to find commonalities with existing taxonomy. But if you're trying to make a name for yourself and you're trying to find a missing link, are you going to do that?

Are you going to say, oh, my fossil looks just like everybody else's? No. And so, you come up and make new species. One of the ways to make new species, by the way, if you look at the textbook, this is the Web of Life textbook. This is the actual skull, and here's the artist's.

Reconstruction of that skull. What's happened? Okay, first of all, they flattened the teeth. You see that? Why did they do that? More human. More human, right? They also tilted the skull to make the face more flat. Okay? And look at what's happened to the eye socket and the nasal passages there.

Would you say that that's an accurate representation of that fossil? No, it is not. So what do we call this on this right here? Propaganda. Okay? This is the fossil known as Hobbit. Hobbit made a splash. It was found on the island of Florensis, or Flores, actually, in 2003.

It was originally thought to be a child because it was three foot six inches tall. It was found then, based on the pelvis, to be a female adult. And of course, the founder said, oh, we found a new species. However, when the fossil was published and people started getting a look at it, there was an expert in Down syndrome who took a look at it and said that.

There are 36 features in this fossil that are commensurate with Down syndrome and microcephaly. What is microcephaly? Have you all heard of the Zika virus? Okay, Zika presents itself as microcephaly, which is being born with a very, very small brain case. And so on this island here, we find this very, very small skeleton, and all of a sudden we have a new missing link, a human-like skull and skeleton that is deformed, and everyone gets really excited.

Oh no, we found the missing link. Unfortunately, there's other fossils that came from the same site that are also small, but they don't have skull deformities. So, at the end of the day, we have pygmies living on that island today. What are pygmies? Very small, diminutive humans. And so, what happens is that as you isolate a population on an island, well, it's you when you grow into adulthood, you want to get married, right?

That's kind of a natural thing. If you're on an island, who do you want to be? Marry other islanders. Okay, and what if they're all related to you? Is that a good thing? No. And so, over time, what happens to species, and this is well documented for other animal species as well, is if you geographically isolate a species and you interbreed them, God has designed their genome in such a way that they try to make the energy efficiency of their metabolism as low as possible to survive.

And what is it that uses the most energy? What human organ uses the most energy? The brain. Okay? So you get diminutive skull and skeletal stature as you interbreed. This is called the island effect. And so, or island dwarfing. By the way, a CT scan of Hobbit showed that she had a normal human brain, including all the parts of the brain that have to do with speech and intelligence.

So, Hobbit was a pygmy with Down syndrome. Another fossil that made a big splash not too long ago is Artipithecus ramidus, commonly known as Artipithus. This is the total sum of the fossil. And you can see, well, let me ask you: what do we see in that picture right there?

Do we see feet? Yeah, right there. What do you notice about the feet? Look at that. That's a big toe. Is that a human big toe? No, it is not. That's an ape-like foot. We have ape-like hands. This is a pelvis. How many pieces of the backbone do we have?

Two. Partial trans processes right there. And then some teeth, part of a skull, and part of a mandible and part of a skull. When this came out, this was discovered back in 1992. It took 17 years to publish this fossil. And it was published with a big hype as being a missing link, because it was supposedly 4.4 million years old, which puts it right there in that transition between modern humans after the split between chimpanzees and humans.

Now, there's a couple of things that you need to know. First of all, only about 45% of the skeleton was found, and the bones were so fragile that they could fall to dust if you touched them. So, a lot of those fossil bones had to be carefully jacketed, taken into a lab, and then they did CT scans on them, CT tomography, and they started compiling the bones together.

So, if you look at the picture here, that's actually not the skeleton as it was found. That's a digital reconstruction of the skeleton. They put all the CT scans together. Secondly, the original parts of the skeleton were found over an area that was a mile square. And then they expanded the search area to four square miles to put this skeleton together.

One individual skeleton over four miles. Isn't that interesting? So, here's the pelvis reconstruction. By the way, there were 11 different reconstructions digitally before they selected the one that they wanted to present. And the presentation here has a hole in it because I had a picture of what this skeleton would have looked like published by Science Magazine, and what it shows is.

An upright standing individual with a full lumbar column, a spine with a back, small of the back curve in the backbone, and ape-like feet but standing upright. And in the picture, it's standing holding onto a log. So, what they surmised is that this creature walked upright, had a spine like a human, and had the opposable thumbs on its feet so that it could grab onto logs as it was walking so it wouldn't trip.

Does that make sense? Do they have a backbone to make the assumption that that individual stood upright? They do not. So, what do you call that when you draw a picture of an upright standing individual based on that skeleton? Propaganda. Propaganda. Do you see a pattern here? Lucy, discovered in 1974.

About 40% of the fossil was found, claimed to be about 3.5 million years, claimed to be pipedal. The problem was that they didn't just find Lucy there, they also found a modern-looking skull in the same strata. Okay? And so they had to come up with a solution to this problem because in the modern-looking skull, That was old, okay, about 2.9 million years old.

And originally, Lucy was dated to be about 2.9 million years old based on an ash bed. And so they went and had the ash bed potassium argon dated, and it came back even younger. And so they threw that out. And they brought in an expert from Olduvi Gorge who had done a survey of pig fossils.

And based on pig evolution, they dated Lucy to be older than the modern-looking skull because there were pig fossils found with Lucy. And the pig fossils were then taken and compared to pig fossils at Olduvi Gorge. And they used the dates at Olduvai Gorge and the correspondence to pig teeth to say, okay, Lucy is older than the potassium-argon dates show.

That's called cherry-picking the data, by the way. Right? Is that legal? Well, apparently it is. If you want your fossil to be older, you just go with whatever date fits your theory. If you look at the fossil, that's the sum total of the fossil. By the way, do you know that Lucy stands about three feet high?

And she is venerated as our ancestor in the evil. She's a missing link, supposedly. By the way, do you notice what are we missing here? Feet. Okay? But if you look at the Museum of Natural History in Chicago, what do you see? Beautiful human feet. Why does Lucy have human feet?

By the way, that's not the only place you find Lucy's feet. There's a St. Louis replica of Lucy, and they say this is Austroplithecus, this is chimpanzee. Look at what beautiful feet Lucy has. Does the fossil have any feet? No. But you know what a human foot looks like, right?

So what's the deal? Well, the statue's feet probably are not accurate, according to an evolutionist, but it shouldn't be changed. Why not? Because it serves a purpose. And here's the thing: in 1978, in Leotoli, Tanzania, there were some human footprints found, and they were dated to 3.5 million years old, which is kind of where Lucy fits in.

And these are modern-looking, unshod human feet, footprints. And so. What they said is, Lucy must have had human feet because here are her footprints. Okay, so they have a skeleton without feet. It's an ape-like skeleton. They find human footprints, and they say, okay, that skeleton must have had human feet.

Homo habulus. At the same time that they were finding Homo erectus, they also found some other bones. And by the way, this is the collection of bones that there's a famous quote where he says that all of the fossils that we have for this taxon can be fit in a shoebox, and you still have room for a good pair of shoes.

That's this one. That right there is the primary fossil. This is called the indicator fossil for Homo habilis. It's known as Homo habulus because they found stone tools in the same place that they found this fossil. Obviously, made by humans. So they said, wow, this ape-like creature made these stone tools.

So they called him Handyman, Homo habulus. But when you look at all the different fossils that the bits and pieces that have been classified as homohabulus, well, the paleontologists that These guys, right here, these are not creationists, by the way. These are experts in the field. This is their assessment of Homo habilis.

It's another wastebasket. So, what have we learned so far? Well, there's a history of mistakes. That's charitable. Neanderthals were 100% human. Lucine Astropithecines are extinct, ape-like creatures. There's deliberate misinformation in textbooks, and there's a desperate attempt to censor information to protect evolution. Now, that runs up to 2017.

In 2017, there were a number of lightning bolts that came out for human evolution in terms of the story of the fossils. There was a fossil named Homo naldii, and I'll tell you a little bit more about them in a minute, but those fossils were redated to only 250,000 years ago, contemporary with modern humans.

So, what does that mean? It means, well, you can't be your own grandpa. Okay? So, if you have an ancestor that is supposedly lived millions of years before you did, and they're found living in your house, they can't be your ancestor. Okay? That's a big problem. Another question.

Creature named Austropithecus sediba was not a missing link at all. It was touted to be a missing link with big fanfare quietly removed to the apes' side of the tree. The journal Nature reported finding evidence of modern humans in California. Go figure. They showed up in California. And 130,000 years ago, when the modern story of out of Africa shows people not arriving in California until 14,000 years ago.

That's a big difference right there in those dates. By the way, I don't believe those dates. And then here's another problem. 315,000 years ago, 100,000 years earlier, and 3,000 miles too far west, you have modern human skulls and tools found in Morocco. So the out of Africa story that the apes diverged from the humans at about 6 million years ago in Africa is under huge, huge burden now because there's evidence that shows that that actually didn't happen.

Here's the biggest piece of information, and that is that there were modern-looking fossil footprints found in Crete, the island of Crete in the Mediterranean. And originally in 2017, they were dated at 5.7 million years ago. Okay? So if you have modern human feet making footprints at 5.7 million years, that's a huge problem.

When was it? Split supposed to have happened? Six. And just six days ago, guess what happened? They redated those fossils, and it came out that they're now 6.05 million years old. Did y'all see this in your feed? Anyone catch this? This is big news. If you follow, I get Google News, you know, that pushes out things that I'm interested in, a bunch of things about rocks and all the time, you know, fossils.

And so if you look this up on that fountain of knowledge called Wikipedia, okay, what Wikipedia goes through and it says, okay, we have modern-looking footprints. This looks like habitually unshod modern human feet, but it can't be modern human feet. It had to have been either a big gorilla or some other unknown monkey that evolved human-like feet independent of the real line that led to humans.

It's called convergent evolution. This is not my quote. Okay, so you have modern human feet at six million years ago, and now you have a monkey walking around with human feet. Just conveniently evolved that and then died off. So human feet have evolved at least twice. Does that make sense?

I got interested in this subject. Again, at the beginning of this year, in April, there was a science article that came out, and there was a press release from the American Museum of Natural History, and it was basically that the title of it was The Big Mess of Human Evolution.

Okay? Here it is. Here's the big mess. These are quotes from that scientific article written by evolutionists past peer review, which I can't believe. And here's what they say. When you look at the narrative for hominin origins, hominin is just a word for anything that from the LCA to us, okay?

It's just a big mess. There's no consensus whatsoever. Overall, the researchers found that most stories of human origins are not compatible with the fossils we have today. This is an admission in the journal Science. After 150 years of continuous discoveries, essential information about human origins remains elusive. There's a nice word.

Elusive. What does that mean when you have an elusive fossil? Is it running away from you? You can't catch it. It's elusive. Even worse, relatively complete fossil apes undisputably assigned to early members of the gorilla and chimpanzee lines remain to be found. So what this means is if you walk into a museum of natural history, they have a wing labeled human evolution.

And there's all the fossils, and you can go around and you can worship at the shrine of Lucy and all these other things. And then you walk over here to the hall of the ape fossils, and it's woefully bare. There's no evolutionary lineage of ape fossils because they're all over there.

Evolutionary scenarios are appealing because they provide possible explanations based on current knowledge, but unless grounded in testable hypotheses, they are no more than just-so stories. This isn't a scientific article. They're calling them out saying, you guys are just making stuff up. Okay? So there's three ways to make a missing link.

One is to take a human fossil and make it look more ape-like. Number two, take an ape fossil and make it look more human. Or number three, mix and match and borrow bones from both, which is what happened with Lucy, by the way. She picks a few ape.

In fact, in Lucy's case, they have fossils from the same strata that are also Pithecine, that are obviously chimpanzee, that are three feet tall, and then they have fossils that are like five and six feet tall. And so what they said was, ooh, this is sexual dimorphism, which means the females are a lot smaller than the males.

Lucy is obviously a knuckle walker. She walked on her knuckles like a chimpanzee. The larger fossils are obviously bipedal and they look like modern humans. So now the story is: not only are the females smaller and the males larger, but the females swung from the trees and the males walked around on two feet.

Okay. That's chauvinistic, is it not? Does that actually happen in real biology? No. Look at this. This is when Homo naldi came out as a fossil. They were shouting from the treetops, we found the missing link. And this is National Geographic. So they said, now we don't know exactly where it fits yet because we haven't dated it, okay?

So the date is all important because if it's a late date, it's going to nudge out Lucy right here. If it's a middle date, then we'll put it kind of in the middle. And if it's more recent, well, then it's just a dead end in the Homo sapiens.

So what does that tell you about that fossil? If it's not the morphology that puts it in the line, it's the date. Okay, if it's early, you put it here. If it's middle, you put it there. And if it's late, you put it there. What does that tell you about what the fossil actually says?

Here is the actual Tree of life drawn by a paleoanthropologist who is trying to be unbiased. What do you see there? It's not actually a tree. Look at all the breaks. Whoops. Going back. Hang on. Let me go. Let me see. Do I have the nope, I don't have the Wikipedia tree of life.

If you look at the Wikipedia Tree of Life, it is a beautiful tree with all sorts of branches that are continuous to everything from chimpanzees to orangutans to gorillas and to us. And it's a beautiful, coherent picture. This is the actual picture from the fossil data, folks. It's not a tree.

It's what you would expect if you have a special creation made in the image of God. 6,000 years ago, man is created, chimpanzees are created, orangutans are created, gorillas are created, and they all live together. This is what the fossil record actually shows us in terms of time down here on the bottom.

You have apes, the ossropithecines, habilis, bozai, africanus, aforensis, arti, all living contemporaneously with human fossils and stone tools being found. All together. This is a huge problem for the evolutionary theory. You can't have people living at the same time that their ancestors are living. By the way, this book right here is a wonderful resource.

It's called Contested Bones, Christopher Rup and John Sanford. If you want to know more about this, it's a great read. It's a very, very in-depth treatise. So, in conclusion, no, you are not an animal. You're being sold a lie if you buy into that. Why do people want to make us just animals?

Because they want to excuse animal-like behavior. We are moral agents. And if you want to know what the image of God in us is, just start making a list of things that we can do that animals can't. Well, for one thing, I noticed that all of you are wearing clothes.

Is that not a good thing? Okay, when I left my garage, my dogs were not wearing clothes. They're running around nude, just like my cats. Why can they do that? Because they have no moral culpability. We wear clothes out of deference for our sin. That's why God had to slay the animal the very first death in the Garden of Eden, because Adam and Eve realized they were morally culpable for their sin.

Disobedience, and they felt guilty and ashamed. So, the very fact that we wear clothes is the image of God in us. Now, one last little thing on propaganda. When you consume popular media, when you consume popular science, beware. The BBC, NPR, Reuters, CBS, NBC, they all ran this story in August about a four-legged whale fossil.

Did y'all see this? This was the picture that came with that news article. Okay? Let me show you the technical article behind this find. There it is. That's the sum total of the bones that were found. And the animal is shown there in the middle, and the pieces are put into the skeleton in red.

What do you notice there? Are there any feet bones in that fossil assemblage? No. There's completely evolutionary imagination. But you won't get that in the popular media. You have to go to the technical article to find that. Propaganda. What is propaganda? It is an attempt to brainwash you into accepting a worldview that is not biblical.

So, by Beware. What is the evidence for human evolution in the fossil record? Zero. We can rest assured that as we move forward, that we will be more and more inundated with propaganda. It is a worldview that is ascendant. But we can also rest assured that our faith is rational and that God created us in His image for a purpose.

We are special creations. You were designed and put on this earth for a purpose. There is only one you. He gave you fingerprints that identify you as you. There is no one else in the universe, in space and time, that has ever had your fingerprints. You are a special creation, made in his image for a purpose.

Isn't that a glorious thought? And by the way, man was created to be eternal. So we can talk about this for eternity. I'm going to stop now. Heavenly Father, thank you for giving us your word, truth, something that we can found our faith on. And we can do that with the thought that not only Is it true, but it has meaning.

Help us to remember that we are special creations, that we are designed for a purpose, that God, you have put us here on this earth for a purpose. And we recognize that you're not done with us because we're still here. We have something to do for you. Thank you for allowing us to think your thoughts after you.

Thank you for the joy of discovery. Thank you for science. We thank you that we can be thinking, intellectual Christians. We don't have to check our brains at the door. And we can rest assured that there's not going to be something that then comes up that completely dispels your truth as written in your word.

Help us to remember that we can't argue people into the kingdom, but that we can certainly stand on our faith as being logical and as the world surrounding us being understandable through the lens of your word. We pray these things in Jesus' name and pray a blessing on this church.

Amen. Thank you, guys.