Evolution: Man making a monkey out of himself.

Homo habilis
Homo erectus: (Peking Man), & (Java Man)
Cro-Magnon Man
Neanderthal Man
Piltdown Man
Nebraska Man

The slideshow may take
a few minutes to load...
Evilution has been proven by the media. Watch the stunning evidence appear right before your eyes in a few minutes. Man is correct, he did come from the monkey? Or at least he lives like he did!
Rom. 1:22,23 says,
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
"And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

Evolution is "man making a monkey out of himself". We will briefly look at the 10 major claimed proofs supporting the theory of evolution.

The first to discuss is 'Ram-a-pith'-e-cus'. His shape; length of arms and legs, head, height, amount of hair, etc. has been shown in detail in drawings concerning him. What evidence do they have? A piece of a jawbone about two inches long. What more proof do you need?

Aus-tra-lo-pit'-e-cus is the next on our list. His skull was found, but the brain case and skull form is distinctly ape. The name even means 'southern ape'. The reason that this was even used is because there were tools found nearby. If that doesn't prove that it was an ape-man, what would? One of the most well known evolutionists, Richard Leakey, has even removed Australopitecus from the chart in his book, 'Origins.'

Donald Johanson, another prominent evolutionist, discovered some bones in Africa. They were shown in National Geographic magazine in December of 1976. These bones have come to be known as Lucy and they are no different than the bone structure of modern chimpanzees that walk upright. Once again, this proof that we came from monkeys is getting more and more unbelievable.

Next on the chart is 'Homo habilis'. A skull was found by Richard Leakey, the leading expert regarding prehistoric man. After the skull was found, Leakey had this to say in the June, 1973 National Geographic, "Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man." This is the reason why: Leakey said that the skull was 2.8 million years old, yet it was of man's genus. It was more man-like than other supposed ape-men on the chart, yet it was two million years older than some of them were. So how could it be? Leakey knew this so his solution is "...toss out this skull or toss out our theories of early man." He also made this comment: "it leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change." (1)
(1) Unlocking the Mysteries Of Creation Vol. 1, pp.114-117 -- Dennis R. Peterson, B.S. M.A.

Homo erectus is the bones of supposedly the oldest nearly human remains on earth. This classification is based on two fossil finds: "Peking Man" and "Java Man" Let's look at them. Peking Man will be first. "In 1921, two molar teeth were found in a limestone hill 25 miles from Peking, China. Six years later, a third tooth was found and given to Dr. David Black. Over the next several years dozens of pieces of broken up skulls were found. Some time after 1936, a man named Franz Weidenreich, who was in charge of the dig, fashioned a model of what "Peking Man" supposedly looked like."
World War Two comes along and all of the fragments were lost except for the two teeth. But before the war, "a French scientist, Marcellin Boule, examined the actual fragments of the skull and in 1937 published his findings. He said that the fragments were definitely monkey-like, that the model did not correspond objectively to the fossils. The date of Peking man was supposedly in the neighborhood of half a million years. Human fossils have been dug up from the same area."(2)
(2) Evolution: The Fossils Say No-- Dr. Duane Gish

Let's look at 'Java Man". This one will make you want to go out and get some 'Espresso'." In 1891 a Dutch physician named Eugene Dubois discovered 'Java Man.' Well, want he really found was an ape-like skullcap.
A few years later he returned to the site along the Solo River and found a human leg bone and two molar teeth 50 feet away from the first find. Like a good scientist, Dubois put the head bone together with the leg bone and called it 'Java Man.' Expert evolutionists have ingeniously estimated the age of the find to be 500,000 years old." (3)
(3) Unlocking the Mysteries Of Creation Vol. 1, p. 119-- Dennis R. Peterson, B.S. M.A.
Some concluding remarks on 'Java Man'. Dubois admitted before he died that he found two truly human skulls near the place that he found the other fragments. He also said that 'Java Man' was, in reality, a giant gibbon.

What man will do so that he doesn't have to show accountability, responsibility to a Creator. He chooses to believe that he came from a monkey even though the evidence is clearly against it. To show what depths that depraved, Godless men will go to fool the public, let's look at Cro-Magnon Man and Neanderthal Man. As we look at these we will see that they are as human as we are. Cro-Magnon Man(12,000 to 30,000 years ago) was found in a cave by some boys out running with their dog. He fell into a crack in the ground. The boys went into the cave, it was several hundred feet long. There were colorful pictures on the wall of deer, horses, and bison."The paintings are now famous as the skillful artwork of people we call Cro-Magnon. Some of their skeletons were found buried in another cave at Les Eyzies, France in 1868. Smithsonian magazine (October 1986) carried an article titled" " Cro-Magnon hunters were really us, working our strategies for survival ".(4)
(4) Unlocking the Mysteries Of Creation Vol. 1, p. 120-- Dennis R. Peterson, B.S. M.A.

Neanderthal Man is the next on our list. An interesting fellow, his name even sounds super primitive. "The name comes from the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. It was here in 1856 that the first skeleton of Neathderthal Man was discovered. Since then there have been many Neanderthal graves found in Europe and the Middle East... During the late nineteenth century, with Darwin's theory shaking the scientific world, these early 'ape-men' were 'proof' that human evolution was a fact"(5)
(5) Unlocking the Mysteries Of Creation Vol. 1, pp. 121,122-- Dennis R. Peterson, B.S. M.A.

They were shown as bent over, club swinging cave men and the reason being is that the one skeletal find was a person severely deformed by age and arthritis. His brain was larger than an average man's today. "
Oh no! Evolution going the wrong way and that is basically what Creation is. Creation teaches that things get worse as time goes on, not better and it is because of sin. It's the law of thermodynamics, things break down and die or rot or whatever. Evolution contradicts the law of thermodynamics.

I want to deal with the remaining so-called proofs that supposedly show that man came from a monkey. Now we come to Piltdown Man and this find was in 1912 and the scientists of that day were sure that they found the missing link between monkey and man. They made the exciting discovery that it was 500,000 years old. But 41 years later, they started really checking out their find and looked closer at the "proof" that man came from monkey.

They found out that the teeth were filed down and the bones were stained to appear old. It was another hoax, a sham but it isn't hard to fool people who deperately want some "proof" that our ancestors were monkeys. "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools".

Next we have Nebraska Man when a tooth was found in 1922. It was determined that this was the "proof" between a chimpanzee, Pithecanthrophus (an extinct ape), and man. This "piece of evidence" was used at the "Scopes Monkey Trial" in Tennessee in 1925 to "prove" that man came from monkey. But that is not the end of the story, the tooth was shown for what it really was, a tooth from an extinct pig. I said before, "Evolution is man making a monkey out of himself". Well here is a case where a pig make a monkey out of a man.(6)
(6)"Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation", Vol.1 by Dennis R. Petersen, B.S., M.A., pgs. 122-123

They have very few pieces of bones that supposedly prove man came from monkey. You could put them all on top of a kitchen table. And just about all of them have been shot down, proven wrong. They were either from real monkeys, pigs, a man with arthritis, or faked to prove something that cannot be proven.

There are new theories of evolution going around and the dates on the present theory of evolution are different by a few thousand years in different books written by different evolutionists. Differences abound but what difference does it make?

Next in line is a little information for those who seem to think that Creationism is religious not scientific and evolutionism is scientific not religious.
"In striking down the Arkansas 'Balanced Treatment Act' in 1982, Judge Overton contended that the theory of creation could not be a part of science because he thought it could be derived only from a religious document. This demonstrated his ignorance of the process of science. That is akin to saying that because evolution is the basis of the first two tenets of the Humanist Manifesto (the statement of faith of a tax extempt religious organization) then it could not be true or be part of science. Indeed the manifesto, signed by a number of prominent evolutionists, does read:
"'Tenet 1: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
"'Tenet 2: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of continuous process.'

"Using Judge Overton's kind of logic, one would be compelled to exclude evolution from science because many of the original formulators and promoters of the theory such as Herbert Spencer (an atheist), Charles Darwin (an agnostic) and Thomas Huxley (an agnostic), had religious motivations. It is undoubtedly true that these men first became anticreationists and nontheists on religious grounds. But this has no bearing on whether or not evolution might be the correct explanation of origins or whether it meets the requirements of a scientific theory. The resolution of those questions is a matter entirely separate from the motivation issue."(2)
(2) Darwin's Enigma, Luther D. Sutherland, pgs. 37-38.

In conclusion, as one Christian brother who is a scientist says, "The missing links are and will remain missing because they were never there to be found." That is in regards to the evolution of monkey to man. But there is a missing link in man.

Many in this world seek to replace a possible relationship with the Almighty God with a kinship to a monkey. Only sin could take a man so low that he would prefer that to God. The worst thing that God did was to come in human flesh and die for our sins to bring us back into a relationship with himself. He paid the price in full and when he said, "It is finished", he meant what he said. Come to the Lord Jesus Christ today. He is calling and no other can save to the utmost as he can.

The true missing link is a Saviour missing in our hearts. He came in human flesh approx. 2,000 years ago. He created you and he wants you to know him in a personal way. He desires to give you life for all eternity. So turn from sin, confess it now. He'll give you strength and this is how. Submit to him, give him your life. he'll give you the best advice. Jesus is his name! Receive him now. He loves you! Well, we close with what would be the forbidden fruit to the evolutionist, that being the banana and we are left with nothing but the skin. When we pulled back the covering, there was no banana inside just as we pulled the covering off of evolution and there was no proof inside. Just weak, pitiful theories, guesswork, wishful thinking and why would anyone think that coming from a monkey is wishful thinking is beyond me. Oh well, we all live and learn and some learn less than others. If we are not willing to test our beliefs with the facts then I guess we can all go out and have a banana, life is short. Eating the 'forbidden' fruit will make one wise or at least that is what the devil said at one time. But then most evolutionists say they don't believe in a devil. So we will see in the end but if the Christian is correct then the end is to late to see. It is now or never. Jesus is still in the saving business and I am not talking green stamps as one gang member had on the back of his jacket in a book that I read. Jesus is into saving souls, lives from hell and giving life at its fullest.