Here is a second round of looking at different comments made in Ms. Gibbons’ book The First Human. It should be repeated that I am not targeting s. Gibbons at all but solely looking at the subject matter in the quotes taken from the pages of her work.
#1. But once on the ground, only the French were pleased. Their section contained the oldest sediments, which were 2.5 million years old. Howell and Leakey both recognized that the sections they had drawn were far younger than those where the French were working. Howell was grumpy about it until the geologist on his team, Frank Brown, stood atop his Land Rover and spied a hill with exposed sediments that looked even older. (pgs. 54-55)
The bold words alone could undermine any argument that geologists and anthropologists use science in their work to determine the age of the dirt they are working in. If all they have to do is look at the ground and proclaim it is old then that takes a lot of work out of the process in figuring out how old the dirt is that they are looking at .
But this is a minor point as there are two things we know that makes their estimates of dates wrong. First, just about every secular dating system works on the principle of assumption, even the ones they use to calibrate the others with are based upon assumption, so there is not one shred of fact involved in their efforts to discover the age of the dirt.
You see, there is no way for geologists to verify one date they give for the age of the dirt, or even the earth. It is an impossibility. You cannot date backwards without a solid, verifiable starting point, and not one secular dating system has that starting point, even C-14 dating.
Second, all secular dating systems are designed and operate under the assumption that all things evolved and that it took millions if not billions of years for the earth to form via the Big Bang model. Those scientists did not develop their dating systems to work with the truth but with their alternative theory and it is no wonder that they produce dates compatible with that theory.
They are basically using circular reasoning when they use their dating systems for they can only work their evolutionary way. When people assume their alternative theory is correct then they can build whatever tool they need to confirm that theory and pass off the results as scientific when in reality all they do is ensure they get the results they want.
There is no objectivity, no independent studies, no truth to get in their way. All the studies and dating systems are biased towards their theory and not open to the truth. It is kind of funny that when C-14 dating started to give dates in conjunction with a younger earth creation, the scientists threw out all those dates and re-calibrated the findings in order to get the dates they wanted to have.
Dr. Libby once expressed his shock when he found that radio carbon dates for human artifacts extended back only 5000 years and older dates were found to be unreliable (http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html)
When it comes to secular science,you cannot trust the secular scientist as they do not want to prove the Bible true, they want their alternative to replace biblical creation. Remove God, you remove sin, right and wrong thus people can do whatever they want without fear. Proving God true means there is a thing called sin and right and wrong and that means there is a hell and a final judgment.
#2. Leakey admitted that the fragments of jaws and isolated teeth did not look very spectacular ‘to the untrained eye.’ But to his eye they revealed a whisper of humanness– low broad crowns on the teeth and a rounded chin not seen in living apes. At an early age, a protoape would look a lot like a protohuman. There were no clear-cut criteria for recognizing a species of hominid this ancient, because most of the hallmarks of humanness , such as upright walking, language, and a big brain, had not developed yet. On the basis of of the assortment of teeth and jaw fragments…he proclaimed these new fossils the earliest members of the human family…(pg. 60)
When I re-read this section, underlined from my initial reading, my first thought was ‘how convenient.’ This reads like Leakey is thinking, ‘No one can see what I can see so I can say whatever I want about these fragments.’
Again there are two things that jump out at the reader. First, this is the scant amount of evidence anthropologists and evolutionists use to determine the evolution of humans. Without the whole skeleton and observation of the living creature, anything can be said about these few remains and no one can refute the conclusions because there isn’t any more evidence to the contrary. The only evidence there is for both sides are the fragments that are discovered. That is it and anyone can read what they want into a fossil.
Second, the reader should notice that Leakey did not use science to prove his claim. He just proclaimed it so without any hope of verification. For all he knew, he could have found fragments from a fully developed human who did not evolve but was created.
In other words, there is nothing in those fragments or the sediment in which they were found that provides any corroborating evidence for his proclamation. All he has are bone fragments and dirt. Nothing more.
#3. Charles Darwin had written a century earlier in The Descent of Man that man must have had a pedigree of ‘prodigious length’ because humans had undergone a great amount of modification in comparison with higher apes…(pg. 61)
The greatest problem that evolutionists cannot overcome is the one of limitation. Evolutionists are restricted to explaining the present world with nowhere to go. The believer simply needs to ask, ‘Why were humans the only ones that developed this far?’, to see the impossibility of the theory of evolution.
If the theory of evolution were true there would be no restrictions on how many species could develop and how far they could develop. But since evolution isn’t true and creation is, evolutionists are restricted to trying to explain the current situation, where humans are different from the animals.
They are stuck. They can’t explain why there were only humans who were superior to animals because origins of man and all species did not take place the evolutionary way. It took place as God said in Genesis 1 thus the evolutionary theory is limited to what God actually did. There are no alternatives for the evolutionist.
#4. For generations, paleontologists had baptized each precious new fossil as a new species or even genus, with some species based on single teeth…(pg. 65)
This sparse evidence is what the evolutionary theory is built upon and that is not enough. But you can see what evolutionists do. They will find the minutest difference and regardless of its true origin will declare an evolutionary discovery and a filling out of the evolutionary tree.
Another problem that evolutionists face is that bones decay, sometimes quite rapidly, thus they will never get the evidence they want because it is gone. Even if they got the evidence they want, they could only read into the fossils because those fossils no longer live and there is no way to observe their traits to see if the evolutionist was correct.
Fossils only prove that a human or animal once lived and that they were subject to the disease, sin and corruption that entered the world at Adam’s sin. They cannot prove any transition because nothing in a fossil is alive performing the desired transition. It is a still picture of one moment in the life of a human or animal, either when the died or what happens to their skeletal structures after they have perished.
No one can say that this fossil transitioned into another species because there is nothing to show that transition. It is all read into the fossil by those who reject the truth of creation found in Genesis 1. Not one fossil demonstrates one transition, it is impossible. To see a transition we must witness countless generational births and that is not going to happen because origins and development of life did not take place the evolutionary way.
#5. One cannot define species or types by applying an arbitrary yardstick to differences in anatomy. it does not matter if two populations of birds looked exactly alike, such as different species of black-capped titmice or leaf warblers. If they cannot produce viable offspring, they belong to a different species. Conversely, if two birds have beaks of different lengths but still produce offspring, they are members of the same species. (pgs. 67-68)
I would like to change the word ‘species’ in the quote to the word ‘kind’ as we know that different species can mate and produce viable offspring. It is less confusing even though no one knows what the boundaries, besides reproduction, define a kind.
We read continuously in Genesis 1 the following words:
bearing fruit after their kind
vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind
with seed in them, after their kind
swarmed after their kind
after its kind;
after their kind
after their kind
after their kind,
after their kind,
after its kind; (re-read Genesis 1 to see the full details)
This is how we know Genesis one is true. Evolution, in its true form, would not have this restriction. There would be no reason for it to exist. Basically, the supposed evolutionary process has no rules and no boundaries but since God made everything and put boundaries in place, evolutionists again are stuck and they cannot explain the existence of these restrictions nor get past them.
Every hybrid experiment has shown this to be so. The boundaries demolish the hopes of evolutionists of being able to constructing an alternative origin and development of life on this planet.
#6. Hands were probably used extensively and perhaps tools as well, Pillbeam and Simons wrote in 1965. And if hands were free to use tools, this suggested that perhaps Ramapithecus walked upright, although there were no fossils from beneath the neck– and all of this was based on fragments of jaws and teeth. (pgs. 68-69)
If nothing else, this shows the desperation of evolutionists who so want their theory to be true. They will use such minute evidence to create hypothesis that have no hope of being true simply because they do not want to or can’t believe the Bible. The evolutionist has no evidence to support their theory of human development. They have to stretch fragments into complete biographies of anatomies and how they functioned and that is not science but wishful thinking.
This round of quotes has only brought us up to Chapter 4 of Ms. Gibbons’ book. if there is this much evidence against the evolutionary theory in these few quotes just think what the rest of the book holds.
To believers, it is clear that evolutionists will do and believe anything as long as they can keep God out of the picture. This is why it is wrong for Christians to accept evolutionary thinking or even to try to Christianize it. There is nothing of God in the evolutionary theory.
That theory is based totally upon assumption, conjecture, wishful thinking, etc., and not on science, fact, truth or even evidence. I may do a third and fourth round of quotes from this book as long as I do not have to repeat myself, it all depends.