The Cruel and sick god of Theistic Evolution cannot exist!

Here’s why!

1 Corinthians 15:22

“For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.”

Some people are deceived into the concept at least, that they can believe in Jesus Christ as their Savior and at the same time believe that their God created through the evolutionary theory.

Just how stupid are we?

Our God had more “brain power” (since He made them!) than that, working in our favor to make the universe.

These people are called theistic evolutionists or progressive (Wow scary term, remember that its PROGRESSIVES that are screwing up America today so….why would we follow them off this cliff as well?) creationists.

What kind of nature would a god have who creates through the death that is essential to evolution?

This is a little like “Zombie Creationism” where lifelessness comes to life and wreaks havoc with the earth for millions of years and then out of this slime comes Jesus and lo and behold we’re saved but wait are you “Fit” or “Unfit” for heaven?

First, death would have to have begun from the very moment of creation.

Death, disease, pain and suffering would have had to originate with this god.

Long before man, according to evolution, dinosaurs were eating other dinosaurs, and entire species were dying out, you know those same species that have been found today like the coelacanth and hundreds of other animals, insects, and fish that have been photographed over the years….ALIVE and well!

And before you find a verse OUT of its context to prove God creates from Death like this one…………..

“…through death He might destroy him that had the power of death…” (Heb 2:14)

Nothing to do with the point but why would that fact stop you…Right?

This verse is NOT saying that God CREATED from Death but rather that God destroyed what sin DID through the very thing sin did…DEATH DESTROYED BY DEATH, NOT DEATH CREATING LIFE…..THE RESURRECTION WAS GOD USING HIS LIFE TO BRING BACK CHRIST’S LIFE TO HIM.

Rather than loving us, such a god would be indifferent and capricious to our problems.

Why?

Because WE would not be FIT to survive so why bother to intervene?!

The god that would use evolution to make living things would have no right to punish sin at all.

Why?

Because he would be guilty of what he says about us!

Sounds to me that they would be GIVING over our defeat to Atheism without a fight, because that’s exactly what they believe about our God to begin with.

Please Christian, THINK before attaching God to a godless theory like Evolution!

He would have had no right to bring a worldwide Flood to punish sinful man. This kind of god would be nothing more than a bully.

Such a god would not be likely to have given us his word. And nothing the Bible says about him could be true as written.

If the Bible really is from him, it is full of untrue claims. Any god who created using evolution is not the God of the Bible.

If you think about it, the god of evolution sounds surprisingly like the devil himself, which he is of all worldly wisdom; by the way.

The Atheist wastes their time fighting the wrong god, it is the “god of this world system” Satan, that is ALL of man’s problems in one person.

But instead they would rather fight against the idea of “The God of the Bible” that THEY say doesn’t even exist let alone cause creation or Evolution!

What’s wrong with believing that God created through evolution over millions of years, the better question would be ‘What’s right with it‘?

It is simply a Cop-out FOR BELIEVERS who don’t want to invest the time to really get to know their saviour.

Any “god” invented or real that would use “evolution and death” to make us is extremely cruel and not worthy of any-ones time and effort.

More importantly, if there was no first Adam to bring sin and death into the world, there was no need for Christ, Whom the Bible calls the last Adam, to die and save us from sin and death.

The following is a Post by By

A Christian Post Reporter

From Tue, Jul. 03 2007 04:54 PM ET.

I thought I would repost this article for the sake of having the real truth about Darwin known to all.

Many Atheists could learn a lot of humility from their mentor if they would simply stop and learn from his ideas on faith unknown to most of us! By posting this, I in no way give any slack to evolution as credable, because it is FULL of holes, and is in no way comparable to creation.

The real purpose of this post is to show that the so-called founder of atheist scientific thought WAS NEVER himself an atheist but only an agnostic when he died!

“I, the Ministerofblog; IN NO WAY SUPPORT THEISTIC EVOLUTION WHICH IS SIMPLY A COP-OUT VIEWPOINT!”

The man most often pinpointed as the root of the clashes between atheist evolutionists and Christian creationists was actually a life-long defender of Christian missionary works, reminded the author of a recent report.


A statue of Charles Darwin stands in front of the Elizabethan building which was in Darwin’s time Shrewsbury School, and the school he attended as a boarder, and which is now Shrewsbury’s library.

“Charles Darwin, best known as the father of the evolution theory, was not anti-religion as many nowadays believe, but rather he had planned to be an Anglican priest and was moved by missionary efforts to reach uncivilized people.

“I don’t think Darwin would recognize his defenders today and probably wouldn’t understand his attackers,”

said cultural historian Mark Graham of Grove City College in Pennsylvania to USA Today.

Graham is the author of the report

“‘The Enchanter’s Wand’:

Charles Darwin, Foreign Missions, and the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle”

found in the latest issue of the Journal of Religious History.

The report addresses Darwin’s transformation from an uninterested person in religion into an outspoken proponent of missions during his famed voyage around the world on the H.M.S. Beagle where he visited sites like the Galapagos Islands and the Great Barrier Reef, leading him to develop his theory of evolution.

As part of the H.M.S. Beagle voyage, Darwin came in contact with mission activities already taking place at some of the ship’s stops. He was impressed by the good works performed by the missionaries who greeted the members of the ship and became convinced missionaries helped natives to become civilized.

In addition, one of the purposes of the H.M.S. Beagle journey was to return native Fuegians – people from an archipelago off the southernmost tip of South America –trained in England as missionaries to their homeland as a Christianization effort.

Grove City’s Graham pointed out that Darwin’s first publication after his 1831 and 1836 voyage was a defense of missionary work in the Pacific, according to USA Today.

“The march of improvement, consequent on the introduction of Christianity, through the South Seas, probably stands by itself on the records of the world,”

Darwin wrote in 1836 about the sea voyage.

However, his evolution theory has continued to spark opposition more than a century later from many Christians (Me included!) who believe that the Bible’s creation story should be interpreted to mean man and animal have always been in their present form.

However, other Christians, such as prominent geneticist Dr. Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Project, argue that there is nothing contradictory in believing in evolution and the Bible’s creation story.

Collins, like many other theistic evolutionists, believes evolution is part of God’s creation process. He points to the Bible, highlighting that the same science evolution process in terms of formation chronology is found in the Bible.

“Is evolution really the enemy of faith?” questioned Collins during a recent speech at the famed Washington National Cathedral.

“I don’t think so at all! …Who are we to say that we wouldn’t have done it in quite that way?”

Darwin, despite his support for missionary work, died an agnostic (Not an Atheist) that was never antagonistic towards religion.

His wife and children attended church without his objection, according to Graham.”

Is it possible?

Could God have created through evolution?


The best way to find out whether God used evolution as His method of creation is to ask an eyewitness to the event. The Bible tells us that God was the eyewitness, and He tells us He created — He did not set the world to evolve.

God could have used evolution to form life on earth (theistic evolution) if He had wanted to. But He didn’t. If the Bible truly is the revealed Word of God, as Christians believe, then what God tells us in the Bible must be true.

He tells us He created everything in six days — not “evolved” them over billions of years. He tells us He created the various kinds of animals and plants “after their kind.” This means He created mature animals and plants ready to reproduce more of their own kind. He tells us He created the first man from the dust of the ground — not from an ape-like creature.

When reporters from newspapers or television stations want to find out what happened, they try to find an eyewitness who can tell them. In the same way, if we want to find out what happened at the beginning of the world, we should find out what the eyewitness says.
Eyewitness says creation!

God the Creator was the only eyewitness, and He tells us in the Bible’s book of Genesis that He created things — they did not evolve.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was never meant to harmonize with the Bible, but to replace it. Encyclopaedia Britannica says in its biography of Darwin: “There was no place in Darwin’s world for divine intervention …” In fact Darwin put the point in strong terms in his book The Descent of Man: “But the time will before long come, when it will be thought wonderful that naturalists, who were well acquainted with the comparative structure and development of man and other mammals, should have believed that each was the work of a separate act of creation.”

Sir Arthur Keith examining the fraudulent Piltdown skullProminent anatomist and anthropologist Sir Arthur Keith was another to recognize that Darwin saw evolution not as something to combine with creation, but a way to replace it. Sir Arthur wrote the Introduction to the Everyman’s Library edition of The Origin of Species (E. P. Dutton and Company 1928): “Darwin’s aim was to replace a belief in special creation by a belief in evolution and in this he did succeed, as every modern biologist will readily admit.”

Consider this major problem: Someone who believes that God used evolution is in a scientific and scriptural “no man’s land.” Evolutionary textbooks and encyclopedias, like Darwin, don’t use God as an explanation for the evolution theory. Likewise, the Bible doesn’t imply in the slightest that evolution is an explanation for God’s creation. Those who say the two ideas can be combined are being naïve.
Skeptic sees the problem

Even skeptics will usually agree that it is impossible to harmonize the Bible’s account of creation with evolution. We found this comment on a skeptics’ bulletin board early in 2002:

“I don’t see how you can reconcile the facts of evolution and an old earth with Genesis … I mean really, Adam and Eve, though fictional, are described as real people in Bible genealogies, as is Noah. There’s nothing in the creation and flood stories which indicates it’s to be treated differently from stories of identical context like David and Goliath, Elijah going into heaven, and so on.

“Some say the creation story happened over millions of years. But it says ‘there was evening and there was morning, the _th (whatever) day’. Seems to mean a real day. Also the order of creation is way out of line: sun & stars after the earth and vegetation; flying creatures before land ones; domestic animals (cattle) created before humans, just to name some. And how do you reconcile billions of years of death and suffering of animals with a perfect, death-free creation?”

Christians who say they believe the Bible but then try to water it down by saying they also believe evolution and an old earth are doing great damage to Christianity. That kind of Christian will never influence skeptics who can see through their contradictory arguments.

So theistic evolutionists — those who think that God used evolution to create the world — are really stretching the facts, and are left trying to defend a theory that harmonizes with neither textbook evolution nor with the Bible.

Doug Huntington

Another Christian Post Reporter

On Mon, Jun. 25 2007 02:55 PM ET

Scientists from a major pro-intelligent design (ID) think tank praised a Darwinist this past Friday over an article he wrote on their controversial concept.

In the article published in The Christian Century, J. Scott Turner, faculty of the SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry in Syracuse, N.Y., scolded his colleagues over their reactionary stance against ID thought – which argues that life is a result of a “designer.”

Scientists at the Discovery Institute, a grouping of ID advocates, hope that the Darwinist’s article will help open the door for other evolutionists to be less close-minded about ID.

“Hopefully Turner’s criticisms will strike a chord with Darwinists who might otherwise close their ears to the argument for academic freedom for ID-proponents,” explained Casey Luskin, co-founder of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness (IDEA) Center, on the Discovery Center website.

“Given the intolerance towards ID-sympathy that Turner describes, let us also hope that the chord is heard but the strummer is not harmed.”

While Turner is very open with his stance about the issue and disagrees with ID science, he sees the negative backlash given to supporters of the issue and feels that it is unwarranted. Instead, he argues that science is meant to be discussed with arguments on both sides rather than one side being silenced completely.

“[The] modern academy [is] a tedious intellectual monoculture where conformity and not contention is the norm,”

wrote the SUNY professor.

“Reflexive hostility to ID is largely cut from that cloth; some ID critics are not so much worried about a hurtful climate as they are about a climate in which people are free to disagree with them.”

There have been several cases throughout the year in which supporters of ID thought have been strongly affected for their beliefs by academic and scientific institutions.

The most recent publicized incident involved astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, author of pro-ID book The Privileged Planet, who was denied tenure at Iowa State University (ISU).

The professor had strong credentials and had exceeded the typical number of peer reviewed journals needed to receive tenure at the university.

He had written 68 papers, 53 more than the ISU’s required 15.
He also had the highest score among the entire faculty in the astronomy department ,according to the Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS), which calculates the scientific impact of scientists in astronomy.

Several professors at the school even admitted that his ID belief, which Gonzales never taught to students, was the main factor in denying him tenure.

(If this alone doesn’t smell of UNFAIRNESS I don’t know what does, sounds to me like “We don’t want the students here to know the truth about Evolution.”)

“It’s a sad day for science and free inquiry when tenure is denied to a scientist of Guillermo Gonzalez’s caliber,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of the Center for Science & Culture for the ID think tank Discovery Institute, on the Discovery Center website.

ISU President Gregory Geoffroy, who denied Gonzalez’s appeal for tenure,

“has clearly demonstrated that academic freedom is not as important to Iowa State University as passing an ideological litmus test,” he added.

In Turner’s article, the Darwinist addressed these problems against ID proponents, and how they are unfairly treated.

He personally cited an incident involving hostility against Richard Sternberg, former editor of the scientific journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, from scientists at the Smithsonian Institute.

“It would be comforting if one could dismiss such incidents as the actions of a misguided few. But the intolerance that gave rise to the Sternberg debacle is all too common,” wrote Turner.

“The attitudes on display there, which at the extreme verge on antireligious hysteria, can hardly be squared with the relatively innocuous (even if wrong-headed) ideas that sit at ID’s core.”

As another main point, Turner explained the role that ID can play in education and that it should not so easily be thrown away as bad theory.

While evolution has a place in the classroom, he explained that ID also has beneficial traits that can lead to more balanced science, even if it is not all correct.

“[I]ntelligent design … is one of multiple emerging critiques of materialism in science and evolution. Unfortunately, many scientists fail to see this, preferring the gross caricature that ID is simply ‘stealth creationism,’” added the Syracuse professor.

“[But] ID is not popular because the stupid or ignorant like it, but because neo-Darwinism’s principled banishment of purpose seems less defensible each passing day.”

Why evolution breeds monsters like


The Loon's Loon: a top of the line Crazy man!

Hitler,

Madman of Ideas!

Trotsky,

and

Mass-Killers dream man!

Stalin!

An Historical Fact that CANNOT be denied!

Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped the belief systems of mass murderers like Hitler, Trotsky, and Stalin.

Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler

(1889-1945) endorsed a program in Germany to breed a superior race.

The scheme was based on a horrific evolutionary theory called “eugenics” that was founded by Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton.

The idea of eugenics was to improve the human race using principles promoted in the theory of evolution.

The idea was simple: partition the human race into two groups, the “fit” and the “unfit.” Eugenics seemed to be a way to make sure the “fit” had children and the “unfit” did not.

In Germany, the leaders of the eugenics movement got monstrous laws enacted that allowed sterilization of people regarded as “unfit,” and restriction of immigrants who were supposedly “biologically inferior.”

(The United States and other countries enacted similar laws, but the Nazis took it to the extreme when Jews, blacks, and others were ruthlessly murdered to prop up the theory.)

The German people were being seduced to accept that they could be the “master race” by exterminating the “unfit.”

If evolution was right, they reasoned, and “survival of the fittest” was merely a positive, evolutionary process, then what could be wrong with hastening the deaths of the “unfit”?

Eugenics could only become popular because the theory of evolution seemed to have quashed the need for the sovereign Creator, God, who had given humankind absolute moral laws.

When you do away with moral laws, outrageous racism and crimes like compulsory sterilization, Hitler’s death camps, and mass murder on a maniacal scale can no longer be said to be evil.
Trotsky … another monster brainwashed by evolution

Trotsky

Russian communist leader Leon Trotsky

(1879-1940), left, was a fanatical supporter of Marxism and Darwinism.

In the Russian Civil War of 1918-20, he used the force of the Red Army to stamp out whoever he decided was an enemy of the Soviet State.

He confiscated food from peasants, brutalized the Ukrainian army of insurgent peasants, and killed its guerrilla leader, N. I. Makhno.

He inflicted torture and violence against Christians, mercilessly trashed churches, and led the Society of the Godless to get rid of religion.

Trotsky was mesmerized by Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species.

He said: “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.”

He said that Darwin’s ideas “intoxicated” him. And he could not understand in the slightest how belief in God could find room in the same head as belief in Darwin’s ideas.

Like Hitler, Trotsky was a tyrant who saw Darwin’s theory of evolution as scientific justification for dismissing God’s moral laws.

He clearly saw that the two ideas, God and evolution, were totally incompatible.

His atrocities were consistent with this belief, for when you do away with the idea of the God who created you and who has given instructions for the right way to live, there is no reason to avoid despicably violent crimes.

Even if this means murdering everyone who disagrees with you.
World’s worst mass-murderer was influenced by Darwin at 19
Soviet tyrants and mass murderers Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky were strongly influenced by Charles Darwin.

Russian dictator and revolutionist, Joseph Stalin

(1879-1953), was studying at Tiflis Theological Seminary when he started to read the works of Charles Darwin.

One of his friends later said in a book that when Stalin read Darwin he became an atheist.

The theological seminary expelled Stalin at the age of 19 because of his revolutionary connections.

Stalin is regarded as the worst mass-murderer the world has ever seen. With God out of his way after embracing Darwin’s evolutionary ideas, Stalin had no restrictions of conscience or morals.

He set up a terrorist police State, persecuted and murdered innocent communists, and instituted trials in which most surviving Bolshevik leaders were found guilty of treachery and were executed.

He encouraged “Stalinist adoration,” which included naming cities after him

(such as Stalingrad, Staliniri, and Stalinogorsk),

and advocated homage given to him in virtually all public speeches and in print. He murdered Leon Trotsky.

Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” ideas powerfully shaped Stalin’s approach to society.

Oppression, atheism, self-glorification, and the blood of his many innocent victims flowed from Stalin’s rejection of his Creator after reading and believing Darwin’s evolutionary theories.

And the most tragic aspect of all this?

That while Stalin, Trotsky, and Hitler were turning their backs on their Creator, they were building their murderous, racist philosophies on a lie.

What harm can come from believing in evolution? Or how long can I drink poison before I die?

It cannot be overstated just dangerous this system of fantasy is, our children are being truly BRAINWASHED to hate those who become or are born “Unfit” in the world!

The leading proponents of many evil and harmful philosophies and practices have based their beliefs squarely on evolution.

Just because someone believes in evolution doesn’t make them a bad person.

But it’s amazing that so many evil practices and harmful philosophies have come from, or been based on, belief in evolution.

The Bible quotes Jesus Christ as saying: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit” (Matthew 7:18).

The late scientist and Bible scholar Dr. Henry Morris said that by Christ’s test the evolution “tree” is certainly corrupt, because its “fruit” has been uniformly evil.

Dr. Morris published the following list of “evolutionist fruits” in the Defender’s Study Bible, for which he wrote the commentary.

Please note

that although some of these philosophies obviously pre-date Charles Darwin, Dr. Morris pointed out that the modern leading advocates of these philosophies “have in every case based their pseudo-scientific rationale on evolutionism.”
Harmful philosophies based on evolution

1. Communism

2. Nazism


3. Racism


4. Imperialism


5. Atheism


6. Humanism


7. Materialism


8. Amoralism


9. Scientism


10. Pantheism


11. Monopolism


12. Anarchism


13. Occultism


14. Social Darwinism


15. Behaviorism


16. Freudianism

Evil practices based on evolution

1. abortion


2. drug culture


3. promiscuity


4. eugenics


5. pornography


6. genocide


7. chauvinism


8. New-Agism


9. euthanasia


10. pollution


11. bestiality


12. Satanism


13. homosexuality


14. criminality


15. cannibalism


16. witchcraft

Humans are not descended from apes,if they were…from which ape did they turn Human?


Fossils of apes and humans do not fit neatly into any clear evolutionary sequence. We believe this is because humans and apes were created as humans and apes in the beginning — natural evolution from non-human to human has never taken place.If humans evolved from apes or ape-like creatures, when did this happen?

And which creatures were involved at that important point?

With more than 5000 fossils or fossil fragments of apes, chimps, and humans allegedly showing stages of human evolution, which ape-like animal had enough human characteristics for us to say

“this one has just crossed the boundary from ape to human”?

Homo habilis — it’s actually an apeThe short answer is “it never happened,” and the fossils show this. Here’s what we mean.

First, there is disagreement among evolutionists about where to place many of the fossils, because they don’t all fit into a fully accepted sequence.

Many fossils are set aside because they can’t be placed neatly in the ape-to-man scenario, or because they appear in the wrong time-frame.

This is why evolutionists have largely abandoned the idea that human evolution was linear, even though the alternative doesn’t help them either because it leaves them with a whole lot of unconnected fossils.

Second, here is an amazing fact:

None of the ape fossils shows enough specific human features for evolutionists to say without doubt that this is the point where an ape turned human, and none of the human fossils shows enough specific ape characteristics to indicate that they have actually evolved from apes.
A possible sequence

Let’s look at the candidates that are put forward as being in this ape-to-human process, and see if we can identify any at the “transition stage”.

We must point out that some people object when we say that evolutionists believe that humans evolved from apes.

They think we should say that there was once a common ancestor of both apes and humans.

Our reply is that evolutionists never name this common ancestor in their evolutionary lists. They simply have apes, then humans. For example:

The evolutionary website Handprint gives excellent descriptions of the contenders in the alleged ape-to-human transition:

* Australopithecus
* Homo habilis
* Homo rudolfensis
* Homo ergaster
* Homo erectus
* Homo heidelbergensis
* Homo neanderthalensis

This is pretty close to the order given by B. Wood and M. Collard in a paper in the journal Science in 1999 (“The human genus,” Science 284(5411):65-71).

So if humans evolved from ape-like creatures that evolved from apes, we should be able to discover a fossil that links them somewhere in this list.

If the fossil is not in this list, then why believe it happened?

Lack of clear transitional fossils is not evidence for evolution, but against it.

With the Australopiths such as “Lucy” now being generally discounted from being ancestors of humans, the first creature with a slight majority of human features must lie shortly after the Australopiths — either Homo habilis, Homo rudolfensis, or Homo ergaster.
But which one?

Chart of human evolutionThe Handprint website says of H. habilis and H. rudolfensis that

“there is considerable uncertainty as to how to connect these fossils to other remains from the same geological era, how all of them are related to the australopithids — and which of the Homo skulls shows us the true ancestor to subsequent humans.”

In other words, habilis and rudolfensis are a mess. You can’t show how they relate to apes before them, or humans after them, or fossils “from the same geological era.”

This is not because they have transitional features; the problem is that they don’t show a transition, or even a clear link to anything else.

The group just seems to contain a jumble of ape-like fossils that don’t show clear links between apes and humans at all.

Evolutionists Wood and Collard found only ape-like traits in both habilis and rudolfensis.

So let’s try the next step up to see if we can find some human features — Homo ergaster. Now we’re getting somewhere. H. ergaster is described like this:

“There is near unanimity among paleoanthropologists that HOMO ERGASTER, which appeared about 2 million years ago, is the anchor species for all subsequent humans.”

(Ref: Handprint — Homo ergaster.)
Clearly human

Why do scientists agree that ergaster “is the anchor species for all subsequent humans”?

Because H. ergaster walked upright like humans, made tools, had human jaws and teeth, and physically was almost the equal of modern Africans.

H. ergaster was clearly human. And according to evolutionists Wood and Collard, the two “Homo” types before ergaster (habilis and rudolfensis) were ape-like in every major characteristic they were able to test.

On the evidence from Wood and Collard’s tests, habilis and rudolfensis looked like apes, walked like apes, had jaws and teeth like apes, and they had ape brains.

But H. ergaster was loaded with human features.

The only possible comfort that evolutionists could get from H. ergaster having any ape-like feature is that it had a smallish brain.

But as it was human in every other way, logic forces us to conclude that ergaster was a human with a small brain, rather than an ape that suddenly acquired all the characteristics of a human without leaving evidence that it ever happened.

So if habilis and rudolfensis were apes in every way, and ergaster (which followed them) was clearly human, where is the evidence that there was ever an ape-human between them?

Absolutely none!

We believe that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis were simply racial variants of modern humans and, like all humans, were descended from Adam and Eve.

Footnote: There are other fossils besides those above that some evolutionists might include, such as Homo floresiensis and fossils found at Dmanisi in the Republic of Georgia.

Of Homo floresiensis, an education source says, “At present, there is no clear consensus among paleoanthropologists as to the place of floresiensis in human evolution.”

(Ref: Palomar College, Behavioral Sciences Department)

Of the Dmanisi fossils, instead of providing answers to how apes allegedly evolved into humans, the Dmanisi fossils have only raised more questions.

National Geographic reported in its August 2002 edition,

“Along with other fossils and tools found at the site, this skull reopens so many questions about our ancestry that one scientist muttered: ‘They ought to put it back in the ground.’”

Erik Trinkhaus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, said, “They were little people with little brains — that doesn’t really surprise me.” (Ref: AiG)

Chris Stringer from the Natural History Museum in London said he doubted that the Dmanisi hominids were our direct ancestors.

(Ref: BBC News)

University of North Texas News Service said of a new Dmanisi fossil in 2005, “The new Dmanisi skull is among the most primitive individuals so far attributed to Homo erectus or to any species that is indisputably human.”

(Ref: University of North Texas news)

So according to evolutionist experts, the Dmanisi fossils are unlikely to be our direct ancestors, because they are “indisputably human”.

Therefore they can’t be the link between apes and humans.