Lucy the Ape Still Out of Our Lineage
In 1974, Donald Johanson and his team found some bones of an Australopithecus afarensis and named it Lucy, inspired by the Beatles song "Lucy in the Sky with Diamons". Evolutionists got themselves worked up into a lather, claiming that this extinct ape (which may or may not have had kaleidoscope eyes) was a part of our family tree. The critter was carted around for idolatrous adoration by the faithful, who acted like some folks over the Vatican Splendors exhibit.
Fundamentalist evolutionists proclaim this alleged link as conclusive evidence and consensus for their worldview, but conveniently neglect not only the controversy that existed from the discovery of A. afarensis (including feuds between Johanson and the Leakeys), but also significant facts (such as the differences between ape and human feet). After all, facts interfere with proselytizing and arguing from materialistic presuppositions, which can be seen in this video (I think it's from 2007, but still contains relevant information). Sure do seem desperate to deny the work of our Creator, even when the evidence refutes evolutionary claims, don't they?
Credits: modified from a photo by Wikimedia Commons / Shalom Added kaleidoscopes from Freeimages / Frizzy Lee |
Human evolution has consistently been shown to be without scientific or biblical merit. Although a parade of supposed transitions are displayed in every conceivable outlet, non-Darwinists maintain that the links between people and our alleged ape-like ancestors are—missing.Don't monkey around, you can finish reading the article by clicking on "Lucy Languishes as a Human-Ape Link".
Perhaps the premier and most popular purported evolutionary relative of man is Australopithecus afarensis, or southern ape of Afar—better known as Lucy. Several hundred pieces of fossilized bone were discovered in east Africa by paleoanthropologist Donald Johanson and graduate student Tom Gray in 1974. Lucy is dated by evolutionists to be 3.75 to 3 million years old, and evolutionists have stated her line “probably evolved directly from [Australopithecus] anamensis.”
How are creationists to respond to this compelling creature that supposedly links us to non-human ancestors millions of years ago?