so i was flipping through channels last night after meg had zonked out.
i, quite contrary to the norm, landed on the jesus channel, channel 20.
but just for the moment that i was on it, it sparked my interest.
what they were going to do was show their point of view on the creation vs. evolution debate.
(so you can see why i was intriguied, what would they have to say)
so anyway. here is an account of what i remember:

the host starts of the program with a few charts. on this chart it shows the skull of neandertal man, and cro-magnon man.
he says that these people of the past had a larger brain capacity than today's humans 1550 - 1600 cc respectively vs. modern humans' 1450.
he jests that today's humans may not be as evolved as we thought, seeing the size of the other past relatives of man.

ok. first of all. cro-magnon is one specimen. how can you determine everything from one specimen? (remember i said one specimen).
secondly. neandertals have a very immature vocal structure compared to modern humans which probably greatly affected their ability to form sounds;
something of that comporable to an infant's. so "more evolved"? just because the opportunity for a bigger brain is there, doesn't mean it can be effectively used.
i don't even know where he was going with that point.

next, he brings in a man who used to work for boston U as a biologist, ph D. written several books, etc.
once took the point of evolution, but was brought to jesus by a friend, so now lets see what he has to say about his old teachings.
hes written a child's book (i hope that wasn't counted as one of the 5) that is titled skeletons in your closet.
in looking at each closet, one notices that "for human beings, their pedigree is purely that, human."

now come his greatest points:
dr. parker (the guest) whips out a tooth. back in the day, probably one scientist claimed on that tooth alone (ballsy fucker) that that tooth belonged to some pre-man species. well, come to find out, more teeth and a jaw bone from where that tooth came was found. and what was thought to be "kentucky man" was acutally a fossilized tooth of a pig.

now.. clearly this false find truely discredits any possiblility of there ever being anything other than man in man's lineage. because one specimen falsely identified of course debunks every other work out there.
mmmhm. oh yeah. moving on.

next. they presented the case of "lucy". ya know, that old bitch that seems to be one of man's ancestors. well. scientists once placed her as being fully erect. but after later examinations, it was found that lucy couldn't have walked fully erect.

so clearly this once again proves that evolutionary scientists have no idea what theyre talking about.
or. maybe thats why they gave it the name australopithecine? because it wasn't fully erect....
not quite homo. you dont see them naming it homo erectus now, do ya?

then they go onto say that fossilized footsteps found in tanzania dating to around 2 million years ago are infact human and not from any such pre-human entity.
well, say what you want, but they coincide with the dates of those australopithecines.
what they took from that was that "human beings predated humans' ancestors."

i don't know what lucy's feet looked like. but i guess you can make any bold claim you want without backing it up.
cuz we all know that's real science....or something.

so they continue. they bring out dr. parker's wife. she's a paleontologist who does her work in florida somewhere.
she brought in fossils of a giant sloth's claw. which was giant. about the size of my forearm.
she brought in a fossil of a mastadon and mammoth tooth.
she also brought in two corpolites, "which those of us who are biblical, would call it dung. and those of us who are children, might refer to is as doo-doo."

well, thank you dr. parker, but i dont really see how bringing in pieces of shit of sloths and sharks will really show that theres no way that humans evolved from something that isn't human.

maybe next time you'll bring in some data that will go against some real scientific evidence, rather than something like the tooth of "kentucky man" where every scientist in the world, even the worst ones, like you, agree that this one specimen has nothing to do with human evolution.

i bid you, good day.