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.

The Creation Account Versus Human Evolution

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.