More than half a year has elapsed since Evolution Science went to press, & to my surprise, it still has not been outdated by any new discoveries! By contrast, LMLK vol. 1 contained numerous errata, but no significant ones related to any of my original content (for those who haven’t read it, about half of the book is by me; the other half contains extensive quotations by archeologists & real scholars [i.e., those who do it for a living]).
Hot on the heels of yet another minor discovery to confirm the reliable historical content presented in the Bible (i.e., the Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet), this week evolutionists bravely confessed to discovering another flaw in their imaginary timeline of human evolution.
The recent issue of Nature contains the primary publication, describing fossilized fragments identified as belonging to Homo habilis & Homo erectus. Biology/anthropology textbooks typically show the former evolving into the latter over a long period of time, & as we know from the general theory of Evolution, the changes had to be small & gradual, especially considering the overwhelmingly small quantity of fossils that have been identified as having spanned this immense timespan (over a million years). Yet the dates obtained for the new finds reverse the order so that their existence-ranges overlap now.
In a BBC interview, co-author Meave Leakey explained, “Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis.”
Fred Spoor, another co-author of the paper, seemed hopeful & as upbeat as anyone could be by suggesting, “the easiest way to interpret these fossils is that there was an ancestral species that gave rise to both of them somewhere between two and three million years ago.”
(Musical interlude: “For people like me there is no order, Bet you thought you had it all worked out, Bet you thought you knew what I was about, Bet you thought you’d solved all your problems, But YOU are the problem!”)
So instead of a smooth, direct trail of educated guesses tracing modern humans back to the oldest humanlike animal before running into a big question-mark between us & some apelike animal, now the trail needs to do a little sidestep with a new “?” inserted along the path.
In an AP interview, another co-author (How many Evolutionists does it take to screw up a “proven” theory?), Susan Anton, wasted no time in staving off critical thinkers by insisting, “This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points.” According to the reporter, Anton “said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.”
That’s like the cliche from so many movies & TV shows that include an evil criminal warning his/her victim in a cold/calculating voice when they attempt–or even think about attempting–to escape, “That would be a mistake…”!
She reminds me of Muhammad proclaiming on behalf of his imaginary deity, “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, & smite over all their fingers & toes. This is because they defied & disobeyed Allah & his messenger. And whoever defies & disobeys Allah & his messenger, then verily, Allah is severe in punishment” (8:12-3).
Creationists frequently analogize the illogic of evolutionists with an anecdote about a 747 airplane, which consists of millions of parts, none of which is capable of flying on its own; but when assembled by an intelligent person (actually teams of intelligent people), it flies. Yet with this new discovery published by Nature, we have yet another example of evolutionists doing just that: gathering a bunch of small pieces of evidence, none of which prove Evolution on their own, & they still manage to make it fly through our global education system as Science!
(Musical interlude: “The problem is you! What you gonna do with your problem? I’ll leave it to you!”)
Like the plastic hypothesis dubbed The Theory of Evolution, LMLK research has never been immune from errors. This week, artist-extraordinaire Kris Udd called my attention to an online publication of recent excavations at Qumran:
Aside from the humorous copyright statement (“This publication may not be reproduced in whole or in part, in any form without premition from the publisher.”), I haven’t found any errors in the publication, but it prompted me to investigate the LMLK corpus published by Andy Vaughn, which cites 1 handle found at Qumran based on VT vol. 29 #1 (“Sennacherib’s Campaign to Judah & the Date of the LMLK Stamps”) by N. Na’aman, which erroneously cites BASOR 142, p. 16, n. 27 for Kh. Qumran.
“Explorations in the Judaean Buqe’ah” (BASOR 142) by Frank M. Cross, Jr. & J.T. Milik describes 1 LMLK handle found at Kh. es-Samrah, near Qumran, but quite distinct from it (Vaughn cites a later publication for the handle by Cross, “Buqei’a, El” in NEAEHL, pp. 267-69). But actually, Na’aman’s footnote was supposed to be listing handles subsequent to Peter Welten’s landmark 1969 book (“Die Konigs-Stempel”; original edition still for sale at LMLK.com), which does indeed list the Samrah handle from BASOR 142.
What Na’aman should’ve cited was what Magen & Peleg did: “Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls” by R. de Vaux (London 1973) p. 2.
I haven’t obtained a copy of it yet, or the more recent book that supposedly contains a photo of the handle: “Khirbet Qumran et Ain Feshkha II” by Humbert, Gunneweg, & Lemaire (Fribourg 2003) p. 353, but I certainly hope to once I return to my in-depth site-by-site research for LMLK vol. 2. (Thanks to Hanan Eshel for bringing this to my attention a few years ago before his reputation was erroneously/unjustifiably marred by his attempt to rescue a rare scroll fragment.)
Anyway, the Qumran handle published by Magen & Peleg is an H2D, which came as no surprise since the 2 found at Samrah by Cross/Milik & Stager were also H2Ds (the latter having Circles as well). It will be interesting to see which stamp was on de Vaux’s 1st Qumran handle.
By the way, if anyone has a problem with any of the content described above, or any of my research (LMLK or Evolution Science), feel free to present your case without fear of getting your neck smitten, or your fingers &/or toes cut off.