Is this the Planet of the Apes? with Helmut Welke

Okay.

All right.

So here we go.

I'm Terri Camerisell and I'm here on behalf of Creation Fellowship Santee and we're a group of friends

bound by our common agreement that the creation account is told in Genesis is a true story

of how God created the earth in just six days about 2 ,000 years ago.

And we've been meeting online through Zoom since June of 2020, almost two

years.

And we've been blessed with lots of presentations by different speakers and authors and

pastors and just some really great guys and women who have

given their time to us.

And we're blessed by that.

And tonight we are introducing another speaker in our

series that we're partnering with throughout All Ages Ministries.

Our friend Stacy Galona has been able to bless by bringing on board some new

speakers for us.

And throughout All Ages Ministries is a ministry that reaches schools.

Stacy goes into different schools and her ministry partners and they believe that the youth in

public high schools are hungry for truth and are in desperate need of answers to vital questions.

You can find more information about that by going to throughout allagesministries .com.

Tonight we're blessed to have Mr. Helmut Welk.

He's the president and founder of Quad City Creation Science Association.

Mr. Welk is a retired engineering manager, having worked in a variety of U .S. and international

assignments with the Fortune 100 company.

He has an impressive resume, but most important to us, we are

thankful that he's a member of the Creation Research Society and an ambassador for Logos Research

Associates.

He recently was elected president of Creation Summit, an organization that seeks to bring the

truth of creation to college campuses through seminars and organized debates.

He has presented creation science in schools, churches, and at civic organizations throughout the United States,

plus France, Poland, and Germany.

Helmut has been looking at the creation evolution question for over 30 years and wants young people

everywhere to hear both sides of the issue.

And so with that,.

We'll turn it over to you.

Okay, thank you, Terri.

Thank you, everybody, for joining us tonight, for watching as you are able.

I'm going to share my screen now.

Hopefully this all is going to work, and we're going to jump right into our topic.

Tonight's topic is, is this the planet of the apes?

Or are we truly created in the image of God?

Okay, I think you can all see the screen now.

And so, Terri, you let me know if anything goes false, right?

Yes, I will let you know.

So far, so good.

Okay, there's our topic.

So let's just jump right into it and talk about the history of mankind, at least our

more recent history.

The Bible, of course, teaches that God created man and woman uniquely.

Genesis 1 .27 says, so God created man in his own image, in the image of God.

He created him male and female.

And then Jesus actually quotes that verse also.

He says, had you not read, from the beginning, he made them male and female,

from the beginning, being a key endorsement, not just from the beginning of Genesis, but from

Jesus himself.

So that's the idea, that we are created separately from all the beasts, the animals, the fishes, et

cetera.

That's just a quick overview that we are unique, not a special ape or animal.

Now, there is a different story.

And that, of course, is the evolutionary story that we evolved from some

type of ape -like creature, and that monkeys and gorillas today, and humans,

we all share a common ancestor.

Here is a picture of some current apes and monkeys.

Perhaps you can pick your relative from among that picture.

Some people tell me, I just gave this talk in Germany, and some people tell me that, hey, that guy on the left looks like Uncle

Fritz, my relative.

But everywhere we go, magazines, newspapers, for decades have been telling us

that we came up from the apes.

And they even say we've got remarkable new evidence that fill in the story of how we became human

after being an ape -like creature in the past.

Here's another cover.

And just a quick tip, take a look at this cover, How Man Evolved, from Time magazine.

It's been a while, but it's very similar.

You can see in the brown tan the actual bone fragments that have been recovered.

The rest of it is a guess.

Maybe it's an educated guess, but one thing that I try to encourage

students is that when you're given a drawing or a representation or even a

sculpture of what this ape -like creature may have looked like, especially the one in this

picture, it's pretty ugly there on the left, but the question then to ask is,

can I see the bones?

Can I see what we actually have?

And what are the facts, not just the artistic renditions?

And that will tell you a lot, a lot about how much imagination has been added to what the

actual facts we have.

Here's another cover of Time, How We Became Human.

Again, only in this one, they superimpose a baby, a human baby, with a chimpanzee face,

and they adjust the size to get them to match.

And there we go, how there are common relatives.

So this teaching is all around us.

In fact, I saw a recent poll, maybe just a year ago or so,

that one of the top reasons that young people leave the church and believe in evolution

and not creation account is the fact that they believe it's been proven we came

from apes, that human ancestry includes ape -like creatures in our past.

That is a number one reason I like to do this presentation, and hopefully you'll get a

different conclusion.

But just to show you what's in our high school textbooks, here's a quote.

Look closely at your hand.

You have five flexible fingers.

Animals with five flexible fingers are called primates.

Monkeys, apes, and humans are examples of primates.

Humans, see how we're listed right there?

Anyway, primates most likely evolved from small insect -eating rodent -like

mammals that lived about 60 million years ago.

Oh, see, you're not just a fancy monkey, you're related to an insect -eating

rodent -like mammal.

How's that for your self -image?

That's what we're being taught.

Here's another high school textbook, and in this one, this quote says, but all

researchers agree on certain basic facts.

We know, for example, that humans evolved ancestors we share with other

living primates such as chimpanzees and apes.

Well, there at the bottom of the screen, we've got Cheetah, and she's saying, no, no, no, you're not my relative.

But yet, we're told we know this.

So we're going to dig into it a little bit.

What about the ape -men?

I'm going to give you a little brief history of some key ape -men, and then tell you why.

Many of you may have heard of Java Man.

Java Man was originally found like about 1891, so a few decades after Darwin

published his book, and they found a skullcap that looked a

monkey -like or ape -like, but then also a human -like thighbone, but not always

are we told that they were found 45 feet apart, but the assumption was

that they did come from the same creature and that they could put this together as a

composite.

So a skullcap, thighbone.

You can see the two pieces, maybe some teeth in the blue box, but at the bottom is how it's been

reconstructed and was sold to the public.

It says Java Man model, 1922.

That was also a key time period.

But then later, we found more fossils on this island, Java,

and they were dating about the same time as Java Man, were given this, signed the same date by

evolutionists.

So suddenly, we've got more and more evidence that we've got fully formed humans, and by the

1930s, remember 1930s, the original Java Man was considered a

mistake.

It was not a single creature.

It was not a human ancestors.

They actually came from two different animals, with one of them being fully human,

not an ape at all.

The original thighbone was human, and then they found other bones

that were fully human, having nothing to do with that monkey -like skullcap.

So since 1950, as anthropologists looked at these bones and other

experts, the textbooks now call Java Man Homo erectus, or upright walking man.

Not Java Man, not an ape -like ancestor, but a human

ancestor.

Some people think or would say that it's not quite fully

human, or excuse me, not fully modern human, but it is.

Homo erectus is what they now call Java Man, or upright walking man.

In other words, he could walk upright, and it was pretty clear from the bones.

And that has been shown to be fully human, and been dismissed.

The second one I want to mention is Piltdown Man.

This has been around since about 1912, the early years before World War I,

and what they had, again here, see what's in black, that's what they actually have, a tooth and part

of a lower jaw that was very ape -like, at least as far as they could tell.

But then also there was a segment or a portion of a human skull, so kind of a similar combination as

Java Man.

Remember, at this point Java Man is still considered a true ancestor of humans.

So this is what they found, and then they considered it to be one creature, the parts

of a human skull and part of an ape -like jaw.

This was put together and called Piltdown Man.

Piltdown Man was named after the county Piltdown in England, where the original bones were

found.

Now that's kind of interesting, because they did say that this was a 500 or half a

million year old intermediate link between apes and humans, was one creature.

But again, we got two different pieces here with a lot of missing interconnectivity parts.

But even though that's all they had, people ran with it, and the New York Times, a

very influential newspaper, even more so in those days, ran an article.

The Darwin Theory proved true.

Wow, we've got the bones.

Piltdown Man was featured in textbooks, encyclopedias, and it was even used as the

basis for some people's PhD thesis.

So it was a pretty prominent deal.

But then, 1953, some scientists asked if they could study and

look at the original bones, not just a plaster cast.

But they wanted to check out the real bones and do a little more analysis, learning about our supposed

ancestor.

But the truth finally came out.

They looked at especially the jawbone and the teeth, and they noticed,

hmm, under a microscope, it's very clear that these teeth have been filed

down with an iron file, an iron file.

Wait a minute, did Piltdown Man go to the Piltdown dentist and have some dental work done?

Hardly.

Nobody would admit that they had iron files in those days.

And it turns out, the whole thing has been shown to be a fraud.

The jawbone and the teeth were definitely from a chimp, but a more modern one.

They were filed down, and a little acid worked on them to make them look really old.

And then the skull portion was actually dug up in a cemetery in

England from a human grave.

They found the skull cap that was about 600 years old, took that along

with the doctored lower jaw, and then they said, hey, let's go dig over here a few

years later, and Piltdown Man.

Everybody agrees it was pure fraud.

Somebody did this on purpose.

But notice how long it took, almost 40 years before we found out the truth.

There's another old hominid -type fossil that people said was our human ancestor.

The fossil was first discovered in 1917, and then it was announced in 1922.

Some key years, because in the middle of the 20s, 1925 Scopes trial, we still had Java

Man held up as a great example that we came from apes.

We had Piltdown Man, still very prominent in everybody's memory.

And now we had Nebraska Man.

The claim was this is a million -year -old intermediate link, and that they even drew

pictures of what the family might have looked like.

In London News, as Nebraska Man was announced, some artists picked up the

idea to draw the whole family here of some ape -like hominid on

its way to becoming more human, but still with a lot of ancestral baggage, I

guess, of being ape -like critter.

This was prominent.

And I mentioned the 1925 Scopes trial because that was a key

moment in the history of our belief system in this country.

1925 Scopes trial was in Tennessee, where Tennessee said that you couldn't teach

evolution, or if you did, you had to teach creation.

I don't remember the words of the law, but it was a big deal.

And the ACLU was actually looking for a teacher to file the suit.

Of course, the whole story became pretty fraudulent.

Hollywood made a movie about it, which is 99 percent fiction.

Most of the events in the movie never happened.

But anyway, think about this.

You got three great examples that we came from apes, and this trial

was broadcast, reported on around the country and the world, and it just made

anybody who held to creation, mankind created in the image of God from the

beginning, they just used all this information to ridicule that.

And even though the law was held up in Tennessee at that time,

the publicity, everything was done and orchestrated and since then, made to look

creationist, look foolish and anti -science.

Well, this one didn't take long.

Nebraska man was supposedly a 1 million year old intermediate link.

But I told you there was based on one fossil.

Again, this is where you want to ask, well, what's the bone?

What do you have for me?

I mean, you're showing me this nice drawing.

But the truth is, all they had was a tooth.

And it turns out it was an extinct pig's tooth.

So the real Nebraska man may have looked like a pig.

That's all it was.

And yet, in 1925, it was still prominent.

Fortunately, this one went away by the end of the 1920s and people knew that was a serious mistake.

But that part never gets publicized.

1925 trial, everything was publicized as being proof that we came from apes.

Well, let me mention another one.

This is about some bones that Dr. Leakey found.

These are mostly jaw bones and they kind of tried to show the difference between apes and human jaws.

And they really are real differences.

But ramipithecus is up there on the upper left.

And see, we have portions.

So you could arrange them depending on how you put the angle between them, either to be more

man -like, human -like, or more ape -like.

But anyway, that's all they had.

That's what became known as ramipithecus.

And this was in the 1930s.

This is what they found in northern India.

See, most of the jaw is there, but it was broken.

So it depends on how you put them together.

This is then what they drew.

Again, you can see the extreme amount of imagination in the drawing

versus what they actually have.

They didn't even have any bones of the, you know, the legs, the elbows,

the hips, and so on, or the rest of the face for that matter.

But they did try to make it like some type of fancy ape trying to stand up.

And they even said this was 14 million years old.

So it was more ape -like than human -like, but on its way in our evolutionary history.

Now, again, this got to be prominent for quite a while.

In fact, in 1977, 1970s, we knew that the first three I told you were already

faked, but Time Magazine said this about ramipithecus.

Ramipithecus is ideally structured to be an ancestor of hominids.

If he isn't, we don't have anything else that is.

And then they showed just a few of the bones they had.

Well, the truth was, and actually Time Magazine was a little bit behind the times, because in

1976, a complete jaw was discovered and you couldn't fake the angle and it had the same dental

structure of apes.

And it had other bones that were found to be part of ramipithecus or an

immediate relative.

And it turns out that these jaw bones and other pieces fit that of

a modern orangutan.

So ramipithecus, which also lasted about 40 years

and was proof of being coming from an ape, was actually an extinct type of orangutan.

But like some of these others, it had a 40 -year run as our ancestor.

Major mistake, but the public was told, oh, we've got proof that we came from apes.

So these are the four I'm presenting to you here just at the beginning, Java Man, Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man,

and Ramipithecus.

Why am I bringing up these old examples that nobody uses

anymore, including evolutionists?

They understand that Piltdown Man was a real hoax and that these others were mistakes.

Because it's important to realize how we got to where we are today.

These past mistakes are important because consider this, for the first half of the 20th

century, everybody was taught, we got positive proof the Bible is wrong and we came from apes.

Generations of scientists, people in general, were convinced evolution was true.

And once you start doing that with generations of scientists and they're teaching their young students and

graduate students that we really came from apes and look at all these monkey facts and continue to find a few more

bones here and there, that these become ingrained in people's minds.

It becomes part of their personality in terms of who they are.

They make their reputation on these types of things and writing articles about what these apes and

hominids may have been and what evolved into what.

And so money and funding is tied into it.

So it's no wonder that it's very difficult to get this switched around.

And I'll show you a few reasons why we should.

So some people may ask, well, what about the Neanderthals?

That's always a famous one that we've all heard about.

Here's an original drawing about 100 years ago, another

brutish looking ape -like creature that's able to stand up on two legs,

maybe a little crooked, but still standing up.

That's what they want from these hominid voice fossils.

So what they found is in these bones were first found in Dusseldorf, Germany in

1856 near the Neander River.

That's where we get this name.

Neander is the name of a river near Dusseldorf.

And Tal is the German word for valley.

So where they found these bones is the Neander River Valley, Neander Valley, Neander Tal,

Neanderthals near Dusseldorf.

And as they tried to put these things together, of course, they were constructed to look ape -like because everybody considered these

things to be hundreds of thousands of years old, if not half a million, and therefore it wasn't modern

human.

These Neanderthals did seem to have a brain capacity 200 CC larger than the

average human, but that's larger than the average.

If we were here alive in a meeting, you could look around and see people have different size heads.

So this is still within the scope of a human -sized brain, just at the high end.

Now, what have we found about Neanderthals?

Well, since then we've found Neanderthals all across Europe, and they didn't all look

like they were hunched over like that.

Neanderthals are pretty much considered everywhere a tribe or a

large group of people that were across Europe.

And in their diggings, we find that the Neanderthals used jewelry, they

used musical instruments, they made cave paintings, they were very capable of speech, that was

obvious as we found more and complete skulls, and they buried their dead.

Only humans bury their dead.

And that's what these Neanderthal people did.

Today, if you go to the Neanderthal Museum in Germany near Dusseldorf, and it is a good

museum, they show reconstruction of a Neanderthal in a business suit.

If a Neanderthal was walking down the street in a business suit, you wouldn't give him another look.

Maybe he's a little more Eastern European looking, but he's just another guy in a business suit.

And here, this drawing now shows a human using tools

next to a cave, maybe at the entrance to a cave, next to a

fire.

So, Neanderthals, we've also recovered their DNA.

In fact, many of you may have Neanderthal DNA.

You ever done ancestry .com or 23andMe, one of those

tests?

I was giving this presentation once, and before I got to this part, a lady got very nervous.

She said, I did that 23andMe test, and it came back that

I'm 15 Neanderthal.

Does that mean I'm half ape?

No, it means your ancestors lived in the Ice Age

in Europe, many of them in caves.

DNA, Neanderthal DNA has practically no difference from human

DNA.

And we know that the Neanderthals intermarried with other human tribes,

emphasis on other humans.

They were all human.

And as we look more and more of this, yeah, these are a group of people living a tough time,

managing to survive, trading with other groups of people,

intermarrying.

And if somebody called you a Neanderthal today, well, that doesn't mean you're big and clumsy and half brutish

and stupid.

A Neanderthal is a big husky guy who's strong and smart.

The stock he built, but fully human.

Neanderthals was a human tribe of people, mostly lived during the Ice Age

across Europe.

We found their bones everywhere, human bones, but because of maybe the

larger brow above the eye, they call them Neanderthals.

But we have Eastern European people today that have the same features.

Let's go on to Lucy.

Lucy is a big one, and I'll spend some time on it because Lucy is still in the textbooks.

This statue of Lucy walking almost perfectly straight up

and looking around like she's thinking about, hey, what's going on around me?

And I've seen that in Europe, the same statue.

I've seen it different places in the United States.

And Lucy is very prominent in our high school textbooks on the section on

evolution.

So what about it?

Well, Lucy was discovered in 1974.

So it was a big deal.

40 % of the fossil was found, which is significant.

Most fossils, we don't have that much.

And then they said it was 3 1⁄2 million years old and they could walk upright.

There's a little figure again of Lucy.

Now, again, this is what they found.

Those are the bones arranged, and it's really less than 40%, but that was the common number

that's used.

And then this is the sculptures.

I've seen this in the Museum of Natural History in Chicago, this exact same sculpture,

and I've seen it in Germany.

But notice something.

Look at Lucy's feet.

They look very human, a little hairy, but very human.

All the toes lined up in the front.

Now look at the fossils.

Do you see any foot bones in the original find of Lucy?

No, you don't.

The original find of Lucy, now called Australopithecus afarensis,

had no foot bones.

So they could make the foot look any way they wanted to, and they want her to be able to walk

upright, the ape that stood up, and so they give it a human foot because they know that's a

necessary part of us being able to do that, but there's a lot of other changes as well.

But one thing to note, it's only about 42 to 43 inches tall if it was put

together into an organism, about the same size as a, oh, I don't know, chimpanzee.

Well, the thing about the Australopithecines, or Australopithecus afarensis, is that we found more and more bones of Lucy's

cousins.

So paleontologists have discovered a range of over 300 individuals, and they'll find bones,

like say a couple of the ribs and maybe a piece of shoulder bone, that are in both samples,

the original Lucy as well as another dig, and they'll say, oh yeah, these must be the same

creature, or cousins, or who knows, brothers and sisters.

And they look at them and say, yeah, this is the same type of creature, only in the new find

they'll have different bones, so that they can start reconstructing them.

This is also done with dinosaurs, and we try to put them all back together because it's very rare to have 100

of the bones, if at all.

So we're finding more and more of these bones that they say are

definitely Australopithecus afarensis, maybe a couple of variations, but in other

areas they will find parts of the foot bones.

Remember the foot bones?

Lucy, now designated AL -288 -1, didn't have any

foot bones at all, but other these that they definitely say are her cousins,

do have some foot bones, and look at the sample there.

That is of a foot, and you see how this darkened part, which

is the bone, goes off and becomes a thumb on the foot.

That is now well known.

Lucy, if she really is a relative of these, and everything they tell us is says yes,

because they got all the matching other parts, and they all call these AL -333, for example, or

other designations, they are Lucy's cousins, and they

have a thumb on their foot.

Richard Million, he wrote this.

Anatomist Jack Stern and Randall Sussman described Lucy's hands and feet as being long and curved, typical

of a tree -dwelling ape.

Notice we do have some foot bones that they're now including, and they're long and curved.

The individual digit bones are curved.

Yours are straight.

Humans are straight.

Between the finger digits, if you get a whole bunch of finger bones, if you go across your knuckles, you can see

the individual bones are straight.

Apes have a little curvature in there so they can grasp a branch and hold on to it longer

without stress than we can.

Then the natural history of man, as I looked at this, the first impression given by all the skulls for

different populations of the Australopithecines is of a distinctly ape -like creature.

The ape -like profile of Australopithecus is so pronounced that its outline can be superimposed on that of a female

chimpanzee with a remarkable closeness of fit.

Hmm.

Then others have said, regardless of the status of Lucy's knee joint, which is why they thought she could walk up,

but that's another story, but evidence has come forth that Lucy has the

morphology of a knuckle walker.

What's a knuckle walker?

Well, you've seen chimpanzees, when they want to scoot, they walk on all fours, including

the knuckles of their hands.

So let's look about this.

What have we learned about the Australopithecines over the years?

Well, there's no similarity to humans in most of these, but like a chimp as a knuckle walker.

They have long arms that are identical to a chimpanzee.

Their jaws are similar to a chimpanzee.

The upper leg bone is similar to a chimpanzee.

Lucy's legs, very similar to a chimpanzee.

Are we getting a message here?

The brain size, small, overlaps that of chimpanzees.

And as they studied the shoulder bones, they can tell that very large muscles had to have been attached to them

because of their shape and some of the other details for tree dwelling, like a

chimpanzee swinging from the branches as if they were designed to do that.

And then the hands similar to a pygmy type chimpanzee.

And then the feet were long and curved like a, you say it,

chimpanzee.

There's something going on here when you actually look at the details of the bones.

In fact, if you go to the Creation Museum in Kentucky, just south of Cincinnati, they

have a room dedicated to Lucy and about all the findings and some of the other details.

But in the middle of the room is this little glass exhibit.

And inside the glass made, first thing you notice is a model of a stuffed chimpanzee

knuckle walking.

And then they have these holographic panes of glass around it.

And as you look directly through the pane of glass, they superimpose the actual bones

of Lucy.

And you begin to see it really fits a knuckle walking chimpanzee.

Now, Lucy is still herald as a major example of one of our evolutionary

ancestors.

It's still in the books.

Young kids are continuing taught that it's proof.

And as you get into it, we can really see how just the, you know,

generations of scientists being convinced evolution is true, that we came from apes,

that they start playing games.

And I'm going to give you some examples of that.

First of all, Lucy's pelvis, we did have half of the pelvic

bone of a Lucy, as you can see in at the top, and a chimp, and all

the apes have a shape of a pelvis bone that means they cannot walk upright.

And the feet had, if it had the monkey like foot with the thumb, could

not walk upright.

But they really want her to walk upright.

And the human pelvis is quite different the way the outer blades are formed and

shaped.

So this is quite an issue, but it was never talked about too much until about, I don't know,

late 90s, 2000, because they knew it was a problem.

They thought they had everything else figured out.

But then this video was done for PBS.

I'm going to show you a little part of it and listen carefully to what they say about the pelvis.

Well, first this quote, the fact that the interior portion of the iliac blade faces laterally in humans, but not in

chimpanzees is obvious.

Okay, we know that from anatomy today.

The marked resemblance of AL288 -1, which is Lucy, to the chimpanzees is

equally obvious.

In other words, she has a chimpanzee.

Pelvis.

Let's see if we can get this to work.

The ape that stood up, it was a revolutionary idea.

We needed Owen Lovejoy's expertise again, because the evidence wasn't quite adding up.

The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn't.

Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a

modern human.

But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.

When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so

hard and so completely into this one that it caused it to be broken into a series of

individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.

Okay,.

Did you catch the part where he says they admit

that the Lucy has the wrong pelvis?

It just happens to look too much like a chimp and not a human pelvis.

So, that was a problem if it could really stand up.

It's impossible with a chimp pelvis to stand upright directly and not be kind

of crooked and waddle like a chimp typically does, or then has to knuckle walk if she

really wants to move.

So, they came up with this theory that, of course, the bones are always cracked and broken.

I've dug up fossil of dinosaur bones, and they are broken, but you're

always happy when you get them to fit.

So, she must have the wrong pelvis.

Lucy has the wrong pelvis, so they came up with a story.

This is what must have happened.

After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps

by animals browsing at the lakeshore.

This has caused the two bones, in fact, to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible

position.

Now, did you catch that last part?

First of all, this has caused the two bones to fit together so well.

Now, I have dug up fossil bones, and as you talk to other anthropologists, you are happy when the

bones fit together because that's how you know they were originally.

You know, they're sitting in the ground for thousands of years, trees and thaw cycles, and then

possible earthquakes and ground shifts.

But if you can get them to find a couple of places where they fit really well, that's what you want.

Except here, they don't like it with Lucy's pelvic bone.

And they say it's an anatomically impossible position.

Why did they say that?

Why did Dr. Lovejoy say that?

Because it's anatomically impossible for Lucy to have stood up and walk halfway or

even partway like a human.

So, they say, well, there's something wrong here.

You see, Lucy must have died, her bones are at the edge of this water hole,

and a water buffalo or something stepped on her hip and changed

her hip bone from human -like to chimpanzee -like.

See, it must have had a human pelvis, but that accident at the watering hole

changed her, broke her hip bone, and just by accident, it began to

look more like a chimp.

Oh, that's what that animal did when it stepped on her.

This has caused the two bones, in fact, to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible

position.

The perfect fit was an illusion that made Lucy's hip bone seem to flare out like a chimp's.

But all was not lost.

This is where people laugh.

Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape.

He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy and plaster.

He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died.

It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly,

like a three -dimensional jigsaw puzzle.

A very tricky job.

As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimp's, but a lot like ours.

Oh, they fixed Lucy.

They knew what she.

Looked like originally before the water buffalo stepped on her pelvis and accidentally made it

look like a chimp pelvis.

Now we can fix her and make it look like a human pelvis.

No wonder they called it a tricky job.

As if Dr. Lovejoy knew exactly what it looked like before Lucy died.

There's Dr. Owen Lovejoy.

I've never met him, but I'm sure he's a nice guy and very intelligent.

He's a smart professor.

But why would he do this in front of the camera when it's so obvious he's

basically committing legal fraud, tampering with the evidence?

That's what he did.

There's nothing great scientifically about that.

That's just plain fraud.

But he's so convinced, and so many others are in his camp, that evolution is true.

We came from apes.

Therefore, we can tamper with the evidence and make it fit our storyline.

Why would smart, intelligent people put up with this?

Why would he even do that?

Well, I think we find the answer in Ephesians 4, verses 17 and 18.

It says, walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk in the futility of their mind, being

darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is

in them, because of the hardness of their heart.

This is what's going on in academia so much today.

They've been convinced by generations of scientists that we did come from apes, and that their

hearts have been darkened.

Their understanding is darkened, and they have a hard heart.

It's all very futile, but they'll tamper with the evidence, anything, to make it fit their story.

It's very sad that intelligent people could become so deluded.

No matter what the evidence is in front of them, they'll just change the evidence.

I think it is because the hardness of their heart and their understanding has

been darkened.

Let me give you another little tip about

hominid or human ape reconstruction.

Here's one, nice picture that was put into National Geographic.

Does it look like it's an ape man?

Like he's ready to discuss with you something, you know, the latest stock prices or something?

But look at the trick that they've done.

Other than the general shape of the face, look at the eyes.

How many fossils do you think we have of ape men eyes, with the eyeballs, and how they're

shaped, and how they look?

You see, no creature shows the whites of its eyes naturally.

If you have a dog at home, or a cat, and you look at it straight on from the front,

and it's healthy, you will not see the white of the eyes.

Now, if you go from the side, or move a little bit of the eyelid apart, or skin,

not to hurt it, but just so you can see more of the eye, you will see the white.

But naturally, looking right at you, no animal shows the whites of his eyes,

including your dog, when you look at it straight on.

But here, they draw in the white of the eyes, and without even thinking about it,

you begin to think, oh, this is human -like.

This is starting to be intelligent, because I can see the white of the eyes.

You don't think that way, but that's exactly the process that our brains are doing.

And that's why they draw them this way, with the whites of their eyes, to make them look more

intelligent than your average chimp or gorilla.

So, what's all this confusion of bipedal apes?

Let me just run through this quickly, I'm running out of time.

Well, the other thing that's been found in Africa is this Laetoli footprints.

These are in about the same sections of rock, the same strata, as Lucy's

fossils were found in.

But they found these footprints, and they say some 3 .7 million years ago, about the same time as

Lucy was dated at, several bipedal or upright -walking human

animals of the species Australopithecus afriensis left footprints in damp

volcanic ash in what is now Tanzania in East Africa.

These footprints, damp volcanic ash, hmm, a lot of clues right there.

But how do they know it's Australopithecus afriensis?

Because they insist it had to be Lucy, because humans were not there yet.

Here's some close -ups of the footprints.

Look at the one on the left.

You can see, there's a left, right, left, right of a larger

human footprint, and then next to it looks like a child's footprint.

Maybe they're going hand in hand, wondering what's going to happen to them.

Or looking for food or high ground.

Wet ash.

We know there are a lot of volcanic during the opening days of Noah's flood.

Wetness all over the place.

People wondering what's happening.

Do they have to look for high ground when the next tsunami comes?

These are obvious human footprints.

Nobody disputes that.

Tim White said, the uneroded footprints show a total morphological pattern like seen in

modern humans.

Who made these footprints, asked Robert Boyd.

Australopithecus afriensis, remember that's Lucy, is the likely suspect because this is the only hominid whose

remains have been found at Laetoli.

The Australopithecus afriensis is the only known hominid to have lived in East Africa at the time the tracks were made.

See, they have already excluded any idea that humans coexisted at this time

in this rock strata, perhaps at the beginning of Noah's flood.

Humans made these footprints, but the Australopithecines

are chimp -like creatures, not and could not walk upright unless you change their hip

bone, their knee bone, their ankle bones, and their foot bones.

There's a well -shaped modern heel with a strong arch, good ball of the foot in front of it, the big toe in

line.

It's not an ape.

Axo actually does look like homo sapiens, but they refuse that because this date would

deter many paleoanthropologists from accepting that date assignment or that

humans are it.

Could not be.

But remember chimpanzees, including Australopithecus afriensis Lucy,

has a big toe that sticks out based on other fossils that we have found of her

family.

The one on the left is obviously human.

The one on the right is a chimp's footprint.

The opposing thumb could not walk upright, and yet we have proof that humans did, with real

human feet, did coexist at this time.

So back to that statue.

There is that hairy foot that they say looks, should be Lucy's and be very human.

They need something to have made that footprint, but we know that's wrong.

We know that Lucy had an opposing thumb on her feet

based on other similar fossils.

Professor Betsy Schuman, an evolutionist expert, admits that the statue's feet probably are not accurate,

but when asked whether the statue should be changed, what do you think her answer was?

Yeah, absolutely not.

No way.

We don't want the public to think we're all mixed up about this ancestor of ours.

In other words, it doesn't matter if people get indoctrinated into evolution by wrong evidence.

We will continue what happened with Piltdown Man, Java Man, Nebraska Man, and

Aromapithecus.

We want people to believe in evolution, even if we got to tamper with the evidence.

So the Australopithecines known over the last several decades are now irrevocably removed from a place in

the evolution of human bipedalism.

All this should make us wonder about the usual presentation of human evolution in introductory textbooks.

Yes, we should.

Here's another example that came out in 2009.

Ida was found also in Germany, but it's a very neat fossil.

It's almost complete.

It's like the creature was injured.

In fact, it does show have a broken arm, and then got completely buried in mud,

like the bottom of a tsunami or a major catastrophic event.

And they said it's a human ancestor.

They got all excited about it.

But wait a minute.

What does it look like?

Can you see the foot bone?

There.

Look, it's got a very strong opposing toe, so it could sit into branches.

And it's got a long tail, like a lemur.

Oh, you can see lemurs today in any zoo.

That's all it is.

It's a squished skeleton of a lemur type of monkey, though they're not truly a monkey, I

guess.

This one also came out later that year.

This is an article in the Wall Street Journal.

This is called Ardipithecus ramidus, found in Ethiopia, and we're told it's 4 .4 million years

old.

And it sheds new light on our human past.

Look at the picture.

Do you see anything about the eyes?

How it's looking at you, like it's trying to read the stock prices on the opposing page of the Wall Street Journal here?

Look at that.

They're trying to make you think half human.

That's what they draw.

But this is what was found.

Basically, portions of the skull that are really crushed up pretty badly.

How do they know the face looked like that?

With those whites of the eyes showing.

Fortunately, Ardi has all pretty much pretty good foot bones, and so it

shows it has an opposing thumb on the feet.

But the pelvis was not very complete, and they were several

creatures in the area, so they picked up fragments they thought they could put back together, and they used a

computer animation to do that.

And yes, did have divergent toes.

And look at the note here in the article about Ardi.

They had to work a long time to work on the pelvis, and of course the pelvis was reconstructed

to look human -like so Ardi could stand up.

But look who worked on it.

There's our friend, Dr. Lovejoy.

We wanted to get it right, like he knows what it was like.

It's interesting, though, that one of the effective chimpanzee -centric models of human evolution has been a tendency to view

Australopithecus as a transitional between ape -like and early Homo sapiens,

but Ardipithecus nullifies this.

So Lovejoy has given up on Lucy by 2009.

But he likes Ardi, but Ardi is still looking more like an orangutan.

Another recent found was the Naelde bones in

South African Cave.

You may have heard of it.

They had a whole bunch of them.

Multiple creatures were probably buried, or the bones were carried into it by water action

because it's a very difficult part to get to.

And it's most likely a mixture of monkey bones and or diseased humans

with creatinism or just plain malnutrition.

So when this was announced, they gave it the name that kind of makes it sound human

in the Homo genus, but is it?

It's just a mixture.

And then the other shoe fell.

They found these in 2015, or at least when they announced it.

2017, it took them two years to give the dating.

The bones were dated at 200 ,000 years old, the same time frame or later as modern humans.

So in other words, Naledi is completely irrelevant.

You see, every missing link they use for evolution proof has some feature that eventually disqualifies

it from being a real link.

But that fact doesn't often get around to the whole evolutionary community.

They even don't tell each other sometimes.

And it's almost never told to the public.

Dr. Johanson has said, nobody really places a great deal of faith in any human

phylogenetic tree.

In other words, our ancestors.

Oh, by the way, Dr. Johanson, he's the one who found Lucy and now admits Lucy is not part of our

ancestry.

They should put that in the textbooks.

This is a picture I took in the Chicago Museum of Natural History, Evolving Planet.

And I did not put that red line through it.

You see the human evolutionary tree is in shambles.

This progression from an ape to slowly standing up to human, they admit

this did not happen.

It's too complicated, they say.

This is a professor from over in the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany.

And he said, the once popular fresco showing a single line of marching hominids becoming ever more vertical, tall, and

hairless now appears to be fiction.

So here's some of the early ones that I mentioned.

Chromagnum man, Heidelberg man, Neanderthals, Egaster, and Homo erectus or Java man.

Those are all shown to be fully human other than Piltdown, which was fraud.

Here's a little picture of Heidelberg man, Neanderthals, Chromagnum.

Fully human.

They may have been our ancestors or some of us, but just from different tribes of Europe.

Fully human.

These guys look like they're ready to go on a hunting party together.

Some of these other famous fossils that, you know, I don't have time to get into all of them.

Rudolfensis, Abilis, there's Lucy, Sadiba, Arte, and Ida.

They've all been shown to be fully ape or a lemur,

not something in between.

You see, research shows there never were any ape men.

And this is just the bones.

There's just been apes and humans, nothing in between.

Try and remember that.

Dig into the details and you will find that you can trust the Bible.

Which will you trust?

God's word, which changes not?

Or man's word, which is always changing?

Always changing, or covering their tracks, or changing the evidence.

So remember that.

You can trust your Bible.

You can trust the Genesis account for people.

And you can trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the gospel.

We do live in a fallen world.

Sin is why we have disease and suffering and war.

Sin is a problem.

God takes it seriously.

But he gave us Jesus Christ that we may live again.

I pray that you've accepted Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, because he is our only hope.

So let me throw in a commercial.

I do have this presentation.

You'll have it now recorded, but I do have it on a DVD.

I've got one on dinosaurs, people in the Bible, science and the age of the earth, atheism.

I can provide these to you at a discount if you want them all, or just one of them.

But I now have them as MP4 videos on a thumb drive with many extras, about nine PDF

documents, which are various articles, like everything from Carbon 14, some dinosaur stuff,

and a variety of articles about fossils, and so on.

That's all on one thumb drive, 30 bucks, including four major MP4 videos,

plus a couple of short videos.

And you can just send me an email, mention the seminar, and I will mail you,

including shipping in the U .S., for 30 bucks.

But I can send you a secure credit card link for payment if you just send me an

email.

Among other things, to do a Grand Canyon tour every year, we have three seats still open

for June 23 to 26.

Again, to the same email, write me if you'd like to get some info, or come to our website,

qccsa .org, and you can get some more info.

Grand Canyon, a biblical explanation of what we see at the rim, and we get to do a three and a half

hour raft trip between thousand foot cliffs on a small portion of the Colorado River.

It's a great experience, and you don't get wet, no white water, but it's a great experience.

June 23 to 26 begins and ends in Phoenix.

Oh, here's one question.

What about chimp DNA?

Aren't human and chimp DNA 98 .8 % the same?

Well, that'll be our topic for next week, and we'll dig into the details on that, same time on May 12,

the week from tonight.

Meanwhile, I will try to answer some questions in what time we have left.

Well, that was really good that you got this, Terry.

I'm still trying to get a couple servers.

To boot.

Yeah.

Okay, I'll stop sharing at this point.

Super.

That was really interesting and.

Very informative.

I'm looking to see if people have questions.

Now's the time to post your questions into the chat on

Zoom, or if you're streaming on Facebook, you can post your questions into the comments there.

I know when you mentioned the woman who had listened to your presentation, and she wondered if she was related

to Neanderthals, Robin asked if she had.

Big feet.

I have no idea.

She had human shoes on.

It was no problem for her.

Just remember, Neanderthals have been shown to be fully human.

Yeah.

Let's see.

I'm not seeing questions.

If anybody would prefer to unmute themselves and ask their question themselves,

you can feel free to do that.

Otherwise, you can type your question into the chat box while we're waiting.

One thing that I forgot to mention when I was doing the introductions, it's been a while since I've

facilitated in this way, is that if people want to find more of our past

presentations, we have our Creation Fellowship Santee, it's S -A -N -T

-E, channels on YouTube, on Rumble, and on BitChute, plus our Creation

Fellowship Santee Facebook page, and people can email us at

creationfellowshipsantee at gmail .com.

The only thing we do with that, with your email address, is send you invitations

to our upcoming speakers.

Again, like Mike Helmut said, he's coming back next week

to talk about the similarity or not of

chimp and human DNA, and then we have a few more speakers scheduled out.

I don't have the list in front of me right now, but we have some pretty good ones coming up, so

that's the best way to not miss them, is to send an email or to follow us on our

Facebook page.

And I'm not seeing questions here.

It seems kind of quick.

Well, I had, I had, should we shut off the recording?

Okay, Robin, you're real quiet, but I think maybe we could go ahead and call

it a wrap, and then if people in Zoom want to ask their own questions, they can turn on their cameras and

interact with you that way.

So, Helmut, do you want to go ahead and pray to close us for tonight, and then, and then we'll go ahead and

turn off the recording and the.

Live stream after that.

Yeah, I hope you all enjoyed it.

I know it got a little long, but I was trying to hit some of the extra bases there, and of course we always start late, so

my excuse.

But let's pray.

Thank everybody.

Thank you all for being with us, either online or we'll watch this later.

And Lord God, I pray that you would give us wisdom in how we can present information,

how we can remember the facts show that you didn't create ape people, you

didn't use evolution for your method.

You created apes, you created humans.

Thank you, Lord, that you made humans, our original ancestors, in the image of God,

of yourself, and that you've given us so many great capabilities,

including creativity, like you are able to understand,

investigate, not just topics like this, but all of our little

universe that we can see, from astronomy to geology to biology, anthropology,

and so on.

Lord, thank you that you are an amazing God.

We give honor and glory to you, and I pray that everybody here who hears this would be encouraged,

and that we can know the truth, and the truth sets us free, that Jesus is our Savior.

It's in Jesus' name we pray.

Amen.

Thank you.