WmAM skull

Cnm?mzet Skull

Weidenreich finally packed them for military shipment to the United States. They were believed to be aboard the marine ship S.S. President Harrison, which was sunk in the Pacific in mid-November 1941. So Peking man's bones may now be resting on the ocean's bottom.

"However, there have been sporadic reports that the crate never made it onto that ill-fated ship, but was left behind in a railway station, where it was confiscated by the Japanese, stolen by looters or simply lost in the confusion."—*Ibid.

The evidence indicates that this may have been a dining area or garbage dump, and that both animals and people had been eaten.

"But just what had been excavated? A living site? A burial ground? A place of ritual cannibalism? . . Peking man was represented mainly by skulls—hardly any post-cranial material. Not a pelvis or a rib. Just skulls. And the openings at their bases, the foramen magnums, had been widened and smashed, as if someone had wanted to scoop out the brains."—*Ibid.

Twenty years later, in the 1950s, *Ernst Mayr came up with a new name, Homo erectus, and then put a variety of bone finds (Java Man, Peking Man, and several others) into it.

It is well to keep in mind that all that remains of Peking Man are plaster casts in the United States. But plaster casts cannot be considered reliable evidence.

AUSTRALOPITHECINES—(*#8/3 Ramapithecus *; #9/17 Australopithecus*) "Australopithecus" ("southern ape") is the name given to a variety of ape bones found in Africa. After examining the bones carefully, anthropologists have gravely announced that they come from an ancient race of pre-people who lived from 1 to 4 million years ago. These bones have been found at various African sites, including Sterkfontein, Swartkrans, Koobi Fora, Olduvai, Hadar, and Orno River. The Australopith-ecines, like modern apes, had a wide range of varieties.

But they are all apes.

One of the most famous was named "Lucy," and will be mentioned later on.

Some experts believe that these apes, the Au-stralopithecines, descended from another ape, the "Ramapithecines " ("Ramapithecus " is the singular for this word), which is supposed to have lived 12 million years ago.

"No proven ancestor is known for any early Australopithecus, nor for any early Homo [habilis]."—W.

Mehlert, "The Australopithecines and (Alleged) Early Man," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1980, p. 25.

Homo habilis is another ape. In the 1960s, *Louis Leakey found some teeth and skull fragments at Olduvai. He dated them at 1.8 million years ago and decided they belonged to the human family, therefore naming them Homo (people are classified as Homo Sapien. But many experts, including *Brace and *Metress have clearly shown that habilis was nothing more than a large-brained Australopithecus.

Brain sizes: Human beings have a brain size of about 1500 cc. (cubic centimeters). In contrast, habilis was 660 cc. Other brain sizes would be 800 cc. for Hadar, 900 cc. for Koobi Fora. Most other brain sizes are about 500 cc. The Taung and Sterkfontein skulls are around 430 cc. apiece, so an adult of their species would only be 550-600 cc. Thus on the score of size of braincase, these finds prove nothing.

An excellent and detailed article on this, which includes 13 charts and graphs, will be found in "Some Implications of Variant Cranial Capacities for the Best-preserved Australopithecine Skull Specimens, " by Gerald Duffert (Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1983, pp. 96-104). The article reveals that there was evidence of fraudulent measurements of those ancient African skulls. Repeatedly, when initially measured a high cubic centimeter volume was announced for the skull, but later remeasurements by other investigators disclosed much smaller measurements!

"Overall, the revisionary calculations of austral-opithecine skulls have led to reductions of their calculated volumes. The total percentage differences amount to—157.91."—*Op. cit, p. 100.

"The hypothesis that brain enlargement marked the beginning of man was long popular, but went out of fashion with the discovery that the endocranial volumes of the australopithecine group were not larger than those of gorillas."—*Elwin L. Simons, Primate Evolution: An Introduction to Man's Place in Nature (1972), p. 278.

Speaking of theAustralopithecines, *J.S. Weiner commented:

"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, and in this respect and others it stands in strong contrast to modern man."—*J.S. Weiner, The Natural History of Man (1973).

In 1957, *Ashley Montagu, a leading U.S. anthropologist, wrote that these extremely apelike creatures could not possibly have anything to do with man (*A. Montegu, Man's First Million Years).

After the most careful research, *Oxnard and *Zuck-erman have come to the conclusion that Australopithecus is an ape, and not human, and not a transition between the two.

"Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis procedure. This computerized technique simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. This technique, however, has not yet been ap plied to the most recent type of australopithecine, commonly known as 'Lucy.' "—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 39.

LUCY—Lucy, one of the most recent of the Australopithecus finds, was unearthed by *Donald C. Johanson at Hadar, Ethiopia in 1975. He dated it at 3 million years B.P. [Before Present]. In 1979, *Johanson and *White claimed that Lucy came under an ape/man classification (Australopithecus afarensis). But even before that startling announcement, the situation did not look too good for Lucy. In 1976, *Johanson said that "Lucy has massive V-shaped jaws in contrast to man" (*National Geographic Magazine, 150:790-810). In 1981, he said that she was "embarrassingly un-Homo like" (Science 81, 2(2):53-55). Time magazine reported in 1977 that Lucy had a tiny skull, a head like an ape, a braincase size the same as that of a chimp—450 cc. and "was surprisingly short legged" (*Time, November 7, 1979, pp. 6869).

*Dr. Yves Coppens, appearing on BBC-TV in 1982, stated that Lucy's skull was like that of an ape.

In 1983, *Jeremy Cherfas said that Lucy's ankle bone (talus) tilts backward like a gorilla, instead of forward as in human beings who need it so to walk upright, and concluded that the differences between her and human beings are "unmistakable" (*J. Cherfas, New Scientist, (97:172 [1982]).

* Susman and * Stern of New York University carefully examined Lucy and said her thumb was apelike, her toes long and curved for tree climbing, and "she probably nested in the trees and lived like other monkeys" (Bible Science Newsletter, 1982, p. 4).

Several scientists have decided that the bones of Lucy come from two different sources. Commenting on this, *Peter Andrews, of the British Museum of Natural History, said this:

"To complicate matters further, some researchers be lieve that the afarensis sample [Lucy] is really a mixture of two separate species. The most convincing evidence for this is based on characteristics of the knee and elbow joints."—* Peter Andrews, "The Descent of Man," in New Scientist, 102:24 (1984).

Regarding those knee joints, *Owen Lovejoy, *Rich-ard Leakey's highly qualified associate (an anatomist), declared at a 1979 lecture in the United States that a multivariate analysis of Lucy's knee joints revealed her to be an ape

So whether Lucy's bones belong to one creature or two, they are both apes.

*Johanson's theory about Lucy is based on an assumption linking two fossils 1,000 miles [1,609 km] apart:

"Although the Lucy fossils were initially dated at three million years, *Johanson had announced them as 3.5 million because he said the species was 'the same' as a skull found by *Mary Leakey at Laetoli, Tanzania. By proposing *Mary Leakey's find as the 'type specimen' for Australopithecus afarensis, he was identifying Lucy with another fossil 1,000 miles [1,609 km] from the Afar [in northern Ethiopia] and half a million years older! *Mary thought the two not at all the same and refused to have any part of linking her specimen with [*Johanson's] afarensis . . She announced that she strongly resented Johanson's 'appropriating' her find, her reputation and the older date to lend authority to Lucy. Thus began the bitter, persistent feud between Johanson and the Leakeys."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 285.

Johanson, himself, finally decided that Lucy was only an ape.

"Johanson himself originally described the fossils as Homo, a species of man, but soon after changed his mind based on the assessment of his colleague, *Tim White. They now describe the bones as too ape-like in the jaws, teeth and skull to be considered Homo, yet also suffi ciently distinct from other, later australopithecines to warrant their own species."—*Ibid.

Mehlert sums it up.

"The evidence . . makes it overwhelmingly likely that Lucy was no more than a variety of pigmy chimpanzee, and walked the same way (awkwardly upright on occasions, but mostly quadrupedal). The 'evidence' for the alleged transformation from ape to man is extremely unconvincing."—A. W. Mehlert, news note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1985, p. 145.

NUTCRACKER MAN—Nutcracker Man was found in 1959 by *Louis Leakey in the Olduvai Gorge in East Africa, and is one of the Australopithecines discussed above.

Since the Leakeys are frequently mentioned in articles about the bones of man's ancestors, we will here mention that * Louis Leakey was born in Africa, the son of a missionary. He and his wife, *Mary, both had doctorates. After his death, his son * Richard, who never obtained a doctorate, continued bone hunting with his mother. Olduvai Gorge is located in East Africa, about 100 miles [160.9 km] west of Mount Kilimanjaro. It consists of a 300-foot [91 m] gorge that has cut through five main horizontal beds.

*Louis Leakey called his find Zinjanthropus boisei, but the press called it "Nutcracker Man" because it had a jaw much larger than the skull. This was probably another case of mismatched skull parts. The skull was very apelike; but some tools were nearby. so *Leakey decided that it had to be half-human. Slim evidence, but that is how it goes in the annals of evolutionary science.

When he first announced it, *Leakey declared that it was the earliest man, and was 600,000 years old! Although the age was a guess, it came just as funds from *Charles Boise ran out. A new sponsor was needed, and the *Na-tional Geographic Society stepped in and has funded the

* Leakeys ever since.

In 1961, the skull of Nutcracker Man was dated by the notoriously inaccurate potassium-argon method

(see chapter 6, Inaccurate Dating Methods) at 1.75 million years. That story really made the headlines! In 1968, the same materials were dated by Carbon 14, which, although quite inaccurate, is far safer than potassium-argon. The C-14 dating of Nutcracker Man was only 10,100 years.

But there is more: A complete fully human skeleton just above the location of the later find of Nutcracker Man was discovered, in 1913, by the German anthropologist *Hans Reck.

There was much discussion of these remains and *Louis Leakey personally examined them in the 1930s. But in his 1959 press announcement, he made no mention of them. To do so would have ruined his announced discovery. C-14 tests on the skull that *Reck found (the rest of the skeleton had disappeared from the Munich museum) were made in 1974 and yielded a date of 16,920 years. Although radiocarbon dating can have a wide margin of error, 16,920 is far different than 1.75 million! Eventually *Leakey conceded that Nutcracker Man was just another ape skull, like *Dart's Taung Man.

In 1964, another skull—this one belonging to a human—was found near those same tools that *Leakey found in 1959. One of its "hand bones" was later found to be a piece of a human rib.

SKULL 1470—In 1972, *Richard Leakey announced what he thought to be a human-like fossil skull, and gave it an astonishing date of 2.8 million years. The official name of this find is KNM-ER 1470, but it is commonly known as "Skull 1470." If this is a human skull, then it would pre-date all the man/ape bones said to be its ancestors.

Both Leakey and other hominid experts think it looks essentially like a modern small-brained person. It was pieced together from several fragments.

"In 1972, Bernard Ngeneo, of Richard Leakey's 'Hominid Gang,' found a similar but much more complete skull at East Turkana. It is generally known as the '1470' skull, from its accession number at the Kenya National Museum.

"The 1470 skull was pieced together by Richard Leakey's wife Meave and several anatomists from dozens of fragments—a jig jaw puzzle that took six weeks to assemble. Dated at 1.89 million years old, with a cranial capacity of 750cc., Leakey believes it is the oldest fossil of a true human ancestor. In his view, the australo-pithecines and other hominid fossils were sidebranches.

"Leakey fought hard to win a place for his 1470 (along with the previous habiline fragments found at Olduvai) because most anthropologists thought the skull was simply 'too modern-looking' to be as ancient as he at first claimed."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 217.

Here was *Leakey's original announcement in regard to this skull:

"Either we toss out this skull or we toss out our theories of early man . . [It] leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change."—*Richard E. Leakey, "Skull 1470, " National Geographic, June 1973, p. 819.

But it should be understood that modern, living, small-brained (750cc.) human beings have existed, so the finding of a 750cc. Skull 1470 is no reason to think it is an "ancestor" of mankind.

"Human qualities of mind, Keith proclaimed, can only appear when brain volume is at least 750 cubic centimeters, a point nicknamed 'Keith's rubicon' (dividing line) . . How did he arrive at the 'magic' number of 750cc.? It was the smallest functioning modern human brain anatomists had seen at the time [when *Sir Arthur Keith, one of those involved in the Piltdown hoax, was alive earlier in this century]."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolu-

Early comments on Skull 1470 included these:

"The finding of 'Skull 1470,' which Richard Leakey says is nearly three million years old and really human, will shatter the whole evolutionary story built upon so-called hominoids, if anthropologists accept Leakey's pronouncements. An artist for the National Geographic Magazine obligingly painted a reconstruction which is very human indeed. The only thing peculiar is the overly flat nose—and the shape of the nose cannot be ascertained from a skull."—News note, Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1974, p. 131.

"The latest reports of Richard Leakey are startling, and, if verified, will reduce to a shambles the presently held schemes of evolutionists concerning man's ori-gins."—Duane T. Gish, Evolution: The Fossils Say No! (1973), p. 105.

After considering the implications of the situation. the skull was carefully redated. lest it be thought that human beings had lived 2.8 million years ago. The experts did not want it to predate its ancestors!

"The 1470 Skull discovered by Richard Leakey in 1972 was originally 'dated' at 2.6 million years. However, many anthropologists objected because then the more modern 1470 Skull would predate all its supposed ancestors. Thus 1470 was 'redated' until a more 'acceptable' estimate of 1.8 million years was adopted."—John N. Moore, "Teaching About Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 185.

This skull may have been that of a microcephalic human. a teenage human. or an ape.

It lacks the prominent eyebrow ridges common to Homo erectus (Java Man, etc.), many Neanderthals, and Australopithecus. Some fossil apes had brow ridges; others lacked them.

The brow ridge slopes back abruptly as does that of simians (apes). but it is somewhat more rounded.

The size of the braincase is equivalent to that of a teenager, or a microcephalic, and somewhat larger than an ape: 775 cc. A gorilla averages 500 cc., and an australopithecus only 422cc. to 530 cc. The average brain size for modern man is 1450 cc. But there are exceptions to this:

Microcephalics are human beings which have brains as small as 775 cc. This condition is a birth defect which, though unfortunate, occurs from time to time.

"Humans with microcephaly are quite subnormal in intelligence, but they still show specifically human behavioral patterns."—Marvin Lubenow, "Evolutionary Reversals: the Latest Problem Facing Stratigraphy and Evolutionary Phylogeny, " in Bible-Science Newsletter, 14(11): 1-4 (1976).

"None of these early hominids had brains approaching the size of modern human ones. The indices of encepha-lization show that australopithecines were only slightly above the great apes in relative brain size and even the largest cranium [Skull 1470] is about as close to apes as it is to humans."—* Henry M. McHenry, "Fossils and the Mosaic Nature of Human Evolution, " in Science 190(4213):425-431.

It is significant that the lower jaw was not found. This would have told a lot. The face of the skull, below the eyes, protrudes forward in the manner of apes. The jaw and molars are somewhat larger than the average modern human's, but not larger than those of some people. There appears to be a lack of bony support beneath the nostrils, such as is found in gorillas. Facial skeletons are relatively larger in apes than the braincase size. Skull 1470 is about midway in this category, and thus not like that of humans. It also has a long upper lip area, such as apes have.

Viewing three skulls from the rear (an adult human, Skull 1470, and Australopithecus) we find that Skull 1470 has similarities to that of Australopithecus.

John Cuozzo, in a 4-page report complete with two drawings and seven photographs (Creation Research So ciety Quarterly, December 1977, pp. 173-176), provides intriguing evidence for his contention that Skull 1470 may have been that of an early teenage human being, and that damage to the skull after death caused the apelike characteristics in the nasal opening, etc.

Frankly, there is not enough data available to say much more. There is no doubt that the special human qualities of speech, etc., would not reveal themselves in a skull.

It is also a fact that evolutionists eagerly desire evidence that man descended from an apelike ancestor. Yet over a hundred years of searching has not disclosed this, even though, as we learned in the chapter on Fossils and Strata, millions of fossils have been dug out of the ground and examined. If mankind had indeed descended from another creature, there should be abundant fossil evidence. But it is not there.

BONE INVENTORY—(*#12 Major Hominid Discoveries*) Most all of these supposed ancestral bones of man have been catalogued in a *Time-Life book, The Missing Link, Volume 2 in the "Emergence of Man Series," published in 1972. It has a complete listing of all the Aus-tralopithecine finds up to the end of 1971.

Although over 1400 specimens are given, most are little more than scraps of bone or isolated teeth. Not one complete skeleton of one individual exists. All that anthropologists have in their ancestral closet are bits and pieces.

"The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin!"—*Science Digest 90, May 1982, p. 44.

As listed in the Ancient Man appendix on our website (*#12*), the number of bone pieces which have been found worldwide is incredibly small! You will want to turn to the appendix and look over the listing for yourself.

There is little wonder that each new piece of bone receives so many newspaper stories!

"The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table . . The collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive, that more can be said about what is missing than about what is present."— John Reader, New Scientist 89, March 26,1981, p. 802.

"I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments."—*Greg Kirby, address at meeting of Biology Teachers' Association, South Australia, 1976 [Flinders University professor].

"The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone."—*Timothy White, quoted in New Scientist 98, April 28, 1983, p. 199 [University of California anthropologist].

WHAT IT ALL MEANS—All the evidence from bones and fossils gives only one report: Mankind did not evolve from any lower form of life. Evolutionists have found no support anywhere for their theory that man came from apes, monkeys, mollusks, germs, or anything else.

Here are five special reasons why mankind did not descend from apes. We cover several of these in detail in other chapters:

"1. Abrupt appearance of fossil forms separated by systematic gaps between fossil forms. 2. Distinctness of DNA, chemical components, and pattern (design) of morphological similarities. 3. Laws of Mendel: combination, recombination always results in easily recognized plant, animal forms; conclusive evidence of fixed reproductive patterns (designs). 4. Distinctness of human self-conscious awareness, and metaphysical concerns. 5. Distinct ness of human personality involving moral and ethical concern; reflective, symbolic, abstract, conceptual thought."—John N. Moore, "Teaching about Origin Questions: Origin of Human Beings, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1986, p. 184 (emphasis his).

Anthropologists maintain that man descended from an unknown ancestor. and *Darwin said it was an ape. If we descended from an ape. why do we have a different number of vertebrae in our backbones than apes have? Why is our cranial capacity totally different? And. most important. why is our DNA distinctly different than apes. monkeys. and all species of wildlife?

They say that they have found the bones of our homi-nid ancesters. Why then have only a table-top full of bones been found? There ought to be millions of bones. if they lived for hundreds of thousands of years before us. And why do all those bones look only like ape bones or human bones—and never like both?

They say that modern evolutionary anthropology is based on the pioneering discoveries of six men: * Eugene Dubois and his Java Man, *Charles Dawson's Pilt-down Man, the 1921 Rhodesian Man, the 1922 Nebraska Man, *Raymond *Dart's Taung African Man, and *Davidson Black's Peking Man. But the finds of *Dubois and *Dawson were later discovered to be outright fakes. Rhodesian and Taung Man were found to be apes. Nebraska Man turned out to be a pig tooth. and Peking Man was just human bones.

Even * Richard Leakey. the foremost hominid bone hunter of the past 20 years has begun to question what it is all about. When asked on television to name our ancestor. he walked over to a chalkboard and drew a large question mark.

"By 1989, [Richard] Leakey sought to distance himself from his original theory, insisting any attempts at specific reconstructions of the human lineage were premature."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 218.

Brain size points to the conclusion that most of the skulls are those of apes while a few are actually people.

"British anatomist Sir Arthur Keith refused to accept the African australopithecine fossils as human ancestors because their brains were too small. Human qualities of mind, Keith proclaimed, can only appear when brain volume is at least 750 cubic centimeters, a point nicknamed 'Keith's rubicon' (dividing line). And, at 450cc., Australopithecus africanus didn't qualify . .

"In Keith's day, the Homo erectus skulls at 950cc. could comfortably be included as humans, since their range overlaps our own species (1,000cc.-2,000cc.). But the Homo habilis skulls discovered later measured about 640cc., just on the other side of the Rubicon. Skulls of Australopithecus adults are about 500cc., which is larger than chimps but smaller than Homo habilis."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 249.

BABY APES AND GIANT MONKEYS—Yet another problem—and a highly significant one—concerns the fact that immature apes have skulls which are like those of human beings.

"Adult chimps and gorillas, for instance, have elongated faces, heavy brow ridges, powerful jaws, small braincase in relation to overall skull and other characteristic proportions. Baby apes have flat faces, rounded braincase, light brow ridges, proportionately smaller jaws, and many other bodily features strikingly like human be-ings."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 325.

The full implication of this point is of the highest significance, yet it has been acknowledged by few evolutionary anthropologists. Consider these three facts:

(1) It is well-known that many extinct animals were gigantic in size. (See chapters 12 and 14, Fossils and Strata and Effects of the Flood, for more on this.) (2) Young apes have skulls which are shaped similarly to those of humans. (3) Relics of what once was an amazingly large ape have been found (see quotation below).

Put together those facts, and what do you have? The possibility that anthropologists today could come across skulls which are shaped much like those of human beings, yet with small braincases (in the 400-900cc. range),—which are actually immature giant apes!

" [A giant ape lived] during the mid-Pleistocene, about 300,000 years ago. This massive primate probably stood nine feet tall and weighed about 600 pounds, if the rest of the creature was in scale with its teeth and jaws. It was named Gigantopithecus (gigantic ape) because its jawbone and teeth are five times larger than that of modern man.

"In 1935, remains of Gigantopthecus were accidentally discovered in a Hong Kong pharmacy by G.H.R. von Koenigswald, a Dutch paleontologist. Chinese apothecaries have always stocked unusual fossils, which they call 'dragon's teeth,' for use in ground-up medicines. Von Koenigswald regularly searched these drugstores for curiosities and was amazed to find an enormous tooth with an ape-like (Y-5) dental pattern. When more teeth began to show up, a field search began, which has since yielded hundreds of Gigantopithecus teeth and jawbones from various sites in China and Pakistan; other parts of the skeleton, however, have not yet been found.

"There are tantalizing reports that bones of the two species [giant ape and human beings] are mingled at the site [in north Vietnam where research scientists are now finding Gigantopithecus bones]."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 192.

The search for hominid skulls has usually occurred in areas well able to preserve skulls of both apes and men for thousands of years. But relatively few have been found, simply because time only goes back a few thousand years.

Yet some of those skulls could be immature giant apes. These would appear to be small-brained creatures that are quite similar to humans, yet bear a number of differences.

In addition, there is also another possibility: giant monkeys. Just as giant apes could be found, so giant monkeys could have once existed. The discovery of a skull of a giant monkey would also appear humanlike, small-brained, yet with some variant features.

MASS SPECTROMETER BREAKTHROUGH—A newly eveloped research tool, the mass spectrometer, provides dating that is more accurate than the other dating methods.

The following statement by Brown is highly significant. It tells us this: (1) The very expensive mass spectrometer machine actually counts C-14 atoms and gives more accurate totals. (2) Every organic specimen has some radiocarbon atoms, therefore none are more than a few thousand years old. (3) The earliest skeletal remains in the Western hemisphere have been dated by this method, and found to be only about 5,000 years old.

"Several laboratories in the world are now equipped to perform a much improved radiocarbon dating procedure. Using atomic accelerators, the carbon-14 atoms in a specimen can now be actually counted. This gives more precise radiocarbon dates with even smaller specimens. The standard, but less accurate, radiocarbon dating technique only attempts to count the rare disintegrations of carbon-14 atoms, which are sometimes confused with other types of disintegrations. This new atomic accelerator technique has consistently detected at least small amounts of carbon-14 in every organic specimen—even materials that evolutionists claim are millions of years old, such as coal. The minimum amount of carbon-14 is so consistent that contamination can probably be ruled out. If the specimens were millions of years old, there would be virtually no carbon-14 remaining in them.

"Eleven human skeletons, the earliest known human remains in the Western hemisphere, have recently been dated by this new accelerator mass spectrometer technique. All eleven were dated at about 5,000 radiocarbon years or less! If more of the claimed evolutionary ancestors of man are tested and are also found to contain car-bon-14, a major scientific revolution will occur and thousands of textbooks will become obsolete."—Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 95.

The problem is that when orthodox science discovers that a new procedure will topple major evolutionary foundations, a cover-up occurs. It is likely that the mass spectrometer technique will never be permitted to be applied to major ancient archaeological or pre-archaeo-logical materials, such as ancient hominid bones. To do so would reveal their recent age. (For more on this, see the radiocarbon cover-up section in chapter 21, Archaeological Dating. [Due to a lack of space, we had to omit this chapter, but it is on our website.])

0 0

Post a comment