They never stop – the God-deniers who worship at the altar of evolution. Who pay homage to their high priest, Charles Darwin. Who continue to place their faith in theories they contend to be indisputable science.
The latest example is a new fossil study, published in the journal Science, co-authored by David Green, an anatomy professor at Midwestern University in Illinois, and Zeresenay Alemseged, chair of the anthropology department at the California Academy of Sciences.
The study claims that the 3.3 million-year-old remains of a baby monkey, discovered in Ethiopia, somehow confirm that our early human ancestors swung from trees before evolving into the ground-dwellers we are today.
The fossil, a member of the species Australopithecus afarensis, has been nicknamed “Lucy’s Baby.”
It’s a reference to a 3.2 million-year-old fossilized ape, “Lucy,” which was previously discovered in Ethiopia, and which evolutionists claimed for a time to be the proverbial “missing link” between simians and homo sapiens.
The science media is now reporting a supposed link between Lucy’s so-called Baby, which National Geographic refers to as a “toddler,” and human beings as if it’s Gospel truth; as if it’s proof positive that the Bible’s creation story is a fiction.
But not every scientist who sings from the Darwinist hymnal endorses the notion, advanced by Green and Alemseged, that human beings are made not in God’s image, but are evolved from Lucy’s Baby.
The fossil just “doesn’t seem human like,” Carol Ward, a University of Missouri paleoanthropologist, told NatGeo News.
“I don’t think it’s the smoking piece of information that says those guys were climbing trees,” added Scott Simpson, a CaseWestern ReserveUniversity paleoanthropologist.
Ward and Hayes did not express doubts about Lucy’s Baby because they renounce Darwinism.
It’s because they don’t want to risk their scientific reputations by giving their imprimatur to the wild claim that a few ancient bones unearthed in Africa prove beyond a reasonable doubt that humans descended from arboreal monkeys.
Indeed, Alemseged and his colleagues at the Cali Academy of Sciences compared the fossilized remains of Lucy’s Baby with those of living apes, humans and other supposed early human species.
According to NatGeo News, they found that the sockets of the fossil’s shoulder joints point upward, as they do in apes; that the boney ridge that runs along the fossil’s shoulder blades is set at a similar angle as in chimpanzees; that the fossil’s scapula, long and curved fingers, and short clavicle are all gorilla-like.
Well, I’m no anatomy professor, no anthropologist, no paleoanthropologist. But, it seems to me that, if the fossilized remains of Lucy’s Baby look exactly like those of a monkey, it must have been a monkey.
And no matter how much Green and Alemseged want Lucy’s Baby to be the missing link, to prove that man transmogrified from monkey, it’s just more false advertising by scientists who believe in Darwin, rather than God.