Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth forever. Psalms 119:160.

Every thing in the universe works by some kind of system. Our ability to know things and to ascertain truth is based on a model of inquiry. Every philosophy, religion or human perspective starts by breaking it apart and putting it together piece by piece. Every field of higher learning requires a model to be used so that we have a base to build onto. History is no exception to this rule. The pattern that history is built upon is based on our construction of Ancient Egypt. If Egyptian history is shown to be flawed than the entire model has to be altered. Over the next several articles we are going to work on reconstructing history from the start. A close examination of the Sothic Cycle leads us to believe that the current model we are using to explain this phenomenon is completely flawed. Instead of starting our model in 3100 B.C. we are going to start our model in 4000 B.C. Based on the data that we have given in scripture this is a safe round number to give for the creation of the world.  Everything we will be doing from this point will be entirely lenient on this number.
Read More...

Declaring the end from the beginning,  and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure - Isaiah 46:10.

           
It is easy to see the long reaches of Darwinism affecting almost every area of academia. Biology, anthropology, geology, and even sometimes psychology sit on a foundation of evolutionary thought. But the reaches of evolution go into another area of study, and that is the history of man. A great deal of the anthropology that we have talked about goes into what is properly considered “pre-history.” But the long standing bias against the literality of the Bible has opened a historical can of worms and brought about great difficulties in the field of history.  This is an area that I specialize in and it is the area that I have the most passion for. You see, I believe that the Bible is one hundred percent bone accurate. I believe that Moses was a fantastic historian who left us dates and figures that will help us to understand what we are looking for in regards to history. The problem is that our historian Moses is doubted, disbelieved, and considered basically disproved.
            Now history should never be forced to match with Bible. The bottom line is that if it does not match then we must buy ourselves a new history book. Genesis is either credible or it weak and untruthful. What we have to decide is what book we believe. The problem is that history as it is commonly taught is very different from that which the Bible teaches. The Bible tends to describe a great number of events that don’t seem to be found in the annals of Western Civilization books. I remember my first college history class. Ancient civilization was not my greatest strength and so I was elated to hear what the teacher would say about many of the events in the Bible. To his credit he did assign all traditional dates that theologians assign to biblical events. He arrived at the time of the exodus and passed Rameses II as the Pharoah of this event. Of course, I had no reason to doubt him at the time. However, about a year later I decided to do some research. What I found was that I could find a place for the Exodus to have occurred with Rameses II. I wanted him to the Pharoah whose name Yule Brennan donned in Cecil B. DeMille’s classic “The Ten Commandments.” However, the evidence was not merely missing, it was not there at all! The worse part was that I could not find a New Kingdom Pharoah that matched any of the Biblical records of the exodus.
            Other biblical events were falling out of line and I begin to realize that we had a really big problem on our hands. We had a Bible that we could not locate in time which made it impossible to establish the fantastic claims of the Bible. The historians set forth weak proposals that set up the Bible for the critics to tear apart.  Fortunately, I ran in the writings of an anthropologist named David Down. The proposals of Mr. Down were amazing and they completely reset my whole process of thinking. I found out there was a whole community of people who realized that something was wacky with chronology and the Bible. I picked up and read all five works of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky who was one of the first to propose a revision of history. It is my opinion that nothing makes more sense than setting history right. We are not suggesting that history be rewritten. The writer is not so foolish to suggest that we throw out perfectly good history. I am merely suggesting that the time table itself needs to be reset. In other words, we need to set the clock forward and then we see that the Bible is an accurate book. For this article I want to discuss the following;
            I. The Modern View of History.
            II. The Biblical View.
            III. Chronology Assumptions.

Read More...

Evolutionists are quick to point out that slavery is a biblical concept that is not condemned in the Old Testament. They are also quick to jump the gun and accuse Christianity of supporting racial prejudice as well as racial mistreatment. However, they are more reluctant to accept the idea that their own worldviews are deeply tainted with the concept of racial inequality. Social Darwinism is a theory that has not only facilitated racism, but has actually promoted it. Anthropology has played the key role in racial inequality and ill-treatment of many people groups. While the Bible has been twisted to aid racists in their quest for hatred, anthropology has opened the door to racism that in the 1930’s almost swallowed the world alive in Hitler’s Germany.
            It is important to be clear on one point before we open up a discussion on racism and social Darwinism, we should say that not all Darwinists are racists. There are many ways that people inside the Anthropology community do not support ideals which denigrate the genetics of another human being. In fact, in an attempt to atone for the past, the previous theory that we discussed (Out of Africa Model) was introduced. Although, it has been shown time and again to be a faulty model that is an embarrassment to the anthropological field, they aren’t willing to throw it out just yet. Why? Because it eases the tensions caused by over a hundred years of racists ideals and concepts spawning from Darwinist thought. For this article I would like to discuss the following topics;

I. The Development of Darwinist Thought.

II. The culmination of the idea in Hitler.

Read More...

Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Genesis 3:23.

            Despite serious issues with the fossil record evolutionists persist in telling us the same story concerning the origins of man. Somewhere and somehow the human family and the ape family diverged in two different directions. Through a series of mutations and adaptations our ancestors emerged as the top primate and the prince of this planet. However, the question remains who is the first real hominid ancestor. The fact is that this seems like an easy question but in fact, it is not as easy as one might think. For the last hundred fifty years it has been at the forefront of scientific thought. Did humans evolve all over the world at the same time? Did they evolve at different rates? Furthermore, is there one common primal ancestor that unites the human family? Questions like these have had anthropologists panning the globe for the answer. One theory in particular has emerged over the past couple of decades. This idea is a very progressive concept for anthropologists and has caused no small stir in the scientific community. OEC (Old Earth Creationists) as well as TE (Theistic Evolutionists) have found a solace in this concept. The theory is known as the “Out of Africa” theory. The question is whether or not there is a motive behind this theory that has nothing to do with science. I believe that the “Out of Africa” concept is a cover-up to keep the public from realizing the racists implications of Darwinian thought. I want to discuss the following;

Read More...

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. II Peter 3:3-4

One of the biggest deceptions in evolution has to do with a correct view about time. You see in order for evolution to work it needs a great deal of time to facilitate the theory. One needs only to watch the history channel to hear “a few million years” mentioned as if it was a small window of irrelevance. Years are mentioned so nonchalantly it is almost certain that the dating methods of conventional science are absolutely proven to be fact. In fact, one might be surprised to learn that much of what is said to be true is built on a framework of assumption and guesswork. The dating game is one of the most seductive tricks used by the evolutionary community to bolster a failing theory. In this article it is important to remember that the dating techniques are not bad science in and of themselves, but rather good science that is built upon a faulty assumptions. Read More...

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Hebrews 2:6

Homo Erectus is a fossil that is well touted but does not measure up to the expectation of evolutionists. He is the last fossil for now that I want to take a look at in the series on anthropology. According to evolutionary theory Homo Habilis is the first branch of the family tree in the classification of genus Homo. After Habilis is said to have arose Homo Erectus and the side branch we just covered, Neanderthal Man. Erectus is by no means a knuckle dragger and how he would have developed from a chimpanzee like creature into an fully erect hominid like us is bewildering. The name Erectus has to do with the fact that he is the first who is believed to have walked in an upright position. Up until recently his standing in the anthropology community has been very solid. Nevertheless, there are a number of things concerning Erectus that have been called into question. Many in the field of evolutionary anthropology are turning their backs on Erectus leaving no transition from Habilis to Sapien.
Read More...

For thou, LORD, hast made me glad through thy work: I will triumph in the works of thy hands.  Psalms 92:4.

Neanderthal man is a one of anthropologies greatest anamolies. Evolutionist would like us to believe that this withered branch of the family tree is full of ignorant, ill-formed savages with no more intelligence than a common ape. However, when the evidence is examined it appears than Neanderthal is not only more advanced than an average monkey, but appears to be a sentient and creative being. The problem with Neanderthal has to do with his morphology. If Neanderthal is a human as we know them, then why does he have such a different facial structure and body type. Orthodontist Jack Cuozzi is one of the only creationist who has had a chance to examine the actual fossils of La Chapelle aux de saints. His findings may come as a quite a shock. Nevertheless, if you accept his examinations than it becomes painfully clear that Neanderthal man is truly a human and there is a reason for his distinct feautures.
Read More...

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.   Genesis 2:7.

The Bible tells us that man was created in the image of God.  From the moment that God breathed the breath of life into him, he became a living soul. When Adam began to draw breath into his lungs he was a highly intelligent, fully evolved sentient human with all his mental and spiritual faculties in a state of perfection. The introduction of sin into the world not only reduced man’s capacity but brought about darkness and devolution into his soul as well as his body.  However, evolutionists tell us a very different story. In the story of man’s journey according to those who hold to the tenants of Darwin, man rose from the primordial slime to rise to the status of Homo Habilis. Although, it is clear from Article 6 that Homo Habilis is a weak and improbable connection between Australopithecus and Homo Erectus, he is proposed as the winner of the honor. In this process another character emerges as a dark and mysterious creature. His skeletal structure tends to give credibility to the theory of evolution until close examination is done. In debunking the outlandish claims of evolution one of the most important questions to pose is the question, “Who is Neanderthal Man?” Read More...

And the Lord God formed  man of the dust of  the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Genesis 2:7.
 
It is rather uncertain how genus homo erupted onto the scene of human ancestry. Anthropologists have given many different scenarios to explain his emergence. He is thought to be an improved, more intelligent version of Australopithecus. However, many anthropologists are sweeping this creature Australopithecus, under the rug as an embarrassing bunny trail that led to the door of nowhere. Without Australopithecus there is no way to account for the divergence of genus homo and his path to becoming a modern homo sapien-sapien.  Nevertheless, with or without Australopithecus, evolutionists are certain that homo habilis is the first step in the winding staircase leading to now. Habilis is heralded as the first in a series of mutations that led to what you look at in the mirror every morning. Homo Habilis means “Handy Man,” because he is a creature that is often associated with tools. The usage of tools is no surprise as in fact monkeys often use extremely primitive tools as well. The fact is that some monkeys not only use raw materials in order to fashion tools, but often make adjustments to these materials to fit them for use. For example, Chimps eat bugs out of the ground, and they way they gain access is by clearing a long twig of it’s branches and putting it into a hole in the ground. When they bring it up it is loaded with bugs and it is fine dining for the monkey.  However,  in the case of Habilis it appears that he not only used tools but it appears that he is the originator the stone tools known as the Olduwan tool kit. The question is what if evolutionary anthropologists are bending the evidence to make a timeline that explains human origins? What if evolutionist anthropologists already see problems with habilis but realize that without him they have a big problem with the story they have been telling? Homo Habilis may have been handy, but it is quite fool-hearty to place any real faith in his existence as any thing other than an ape.


Read More...

Let us make man in our own image. Genesis 1:26

The evolutionary timeline is filled with a plethora of possibilities to how man evolved. The small monkey proconsul is offered as the Miocene link to human ancestory. However, it is not necessary to prove or disprove whether proconsul is related or not. The primary reason is because while proconsul appears different in terms of modern monkeys, he is distinctly a small monkey. There is nothing that appears remotely human about this find. Proconsul is merely an answer that provides a link between one epoch and another. The real anthropology work begins in the Pliocene and Pleistocene epoch with the rise of Australopithecus. This creature is the supposed to provide a divergent ancestor for modern apes and humans. There are however several different groups of these creatures. Are the Australopithecus specimen Apes or Men? Are they a successful link in the chain of evolutionary progression, or are they a really nothing more than a variation to a modern monkey?  I believe it is safe to say that Australopithecus is hopelessly nothing more than a monkey.

There are a lot of arguments surrounding the emergence of Australopithecus. With all the specimen that are found we seem to be unable to determine which one is related to humans and how many kind there are actually are. Most Australopithecus species fall under one of two categories in that they are either gracile or robust. That is that they are big boned or smaller and more delicate. In the classroom students are taught a well organized group of transitional fossils that make a smooth chain from one to the other arriving at the anatomically modern homo sapien-sapien. Each anthropology professor feels confident enough to name one the following creatures as the connecting species that bring Australopithecus into the category of genus homo. In fact, here is the list that was given to me in my anthropology class starting with Anamensis and going to Sapien-sapien. 

Read More...