The Laetoli Footprints: Surprisingly human tracks for an ape!

The most discussed, non-Homo ancestor of modern humans presented by evolutionists is certainly Australopithecus afarensis, represented by the famous, partial skeleton dubbed, “Lucy.” Models of her skeleton are a staple in probably every natural history museum in the world. You've probably seen one first hand. If you have seen one, you may have noticed that it is only about 40% complete. There are no feet and the only bone found of the hands is a single bone of one finger.

Complete skeletons of large animals are extremely rare in the fossil record. That's just the way it is. But this was a supposed human ancestor and the subject of much interest. Scientists wanted to reconstruct what the creature might have looked like but how can they credibly do that without having its hands or feet? I present to you, The Laetoli Footprints!

The Laetoli Footprints are human footprints found in volcanic ash dated by evolutionists to about the same time as Lucy (3myo). Per Wikipedia, “Although it is highly debated, it is believed the three individuals who made these footprints belonged to the species Australopithecus afarensis.” “Highly debated,” huh? I'm not too sure about that one unless they mean, “Highly contested by creationists.” It is precisely because of these footprints that every, secular reconstruction of Australopithecus I've ever seen sports human hands and feet. In fact, the Wiki article goes on to discuss the prints as though they certainly belong to A. afarensis.

Human hands are somewhat similar to ape hands. However, human footprints are not like the footprint of any creature. The Laetoli Footprints prints are very human-like. Per the same Wiki article, “The footprints themselves were an unlikely discovery because they are almost indistinguishable from modern human footprints, even being almost 4 million years old. It is noted that the toe pattern is much the same as the human foot, which is much different than the feet of chimpanzees and other non bipedal beings. The footprint impression has been interpreted as the same as the modern human stride, with the heel striking first and then a weight transfer to the ball of the foot before pushing off the toes.”

Pardon me while I have a chuckle. If I found footprints that are indistinguishable from human footprints, both in anatomy and stride, my first thought would be that they belonged to humans! It is my opinion that the only reason these have been assigned to A. afarensis is because evolutionary theory proposes that modern humans had not yet evolved at this time and the only other known candidate that might make such a print is A. afarensis. This is clearly a case of shaping the facts to fit the theory rather than the theory to the facts.

Do you think I'm wrong? Then let me point out another quote from the article and see what you think:

Other prints show the presence of twenty different animal species besides A. afarensis, among them hyenas, wild cats (Machairodus), baboons, wild boars, giraffes, gazelles, rhinos, several kinds of antelope, Hipparion, buffaloes, elephant relatives (of the extinct Deinotherium genus), hares and birds.

Look at this artistic rendering of what the scene at Laetoli might have looked like (supposedly) 3 million years ago.  See the ostrich, elephants, giraffes, and guineas?  Do you have any trouble identifying what any of them are?  

Now I've been outdoors enough to know that animal tracks are very distinct. I've never seen a giraffe's tracks (around here I see things like deer, rabbit, and raccoon) but if these scientists have identified a track as a giraffe's, they're probably right. It's funny, though, when I imagine the conversations these scientists were having as they uncovered different tracks:

Oh, look – rhino tracks. They belong to a rhino.

Oh, look – hyena tracks. They belong to a hyena.

Oh, look – baboon tracks. They belong to a baboon.

Oh, look – human tracks. They belong to Australopithecus afarensis.

When you find a human footprint, the most obvious interpretation is that it belongs to a human. I mean, when they see the rhino track they don't question it belongs to a rhino. I never read headlines that say, “unknown species made footprints indistinguishable from a modern rhino's.” The Laetoli tracks are clear evidence that modern humans were contemporary with A. afarensis. Secular scientists, though, close their eyes to that possibility because of their theory. They aren't going where the evidence leads. Their theory is leading them around by the nose.

Oh, by the way, wouldn't this be another out of place fossil? Modern human footprints found in volcanic ash dated at 3 million years old? If nothing else, this is further evidence that Dawkins lied when he said a single, out of date order fossil would disprove his theory.

Now let's back up for a minute. Remember that scientists did not have Lucy's hands or feet. The reconstructions of Lucy, which always depict A. afarensis as having human (albeit hairy) hands and feet, are based solely on the human footprint found at Laetoli. The problem is that, since Lucy, we've found more A. afarensis skeletons which are more complete and some even include bones from the feet! One example is “Little Foot,” discovered about 20 years ago. I've included an artistic reconstruction of Little Foot's foot published on Wiki. Even a layperson like me can see that that foot could not have made the Laetoli footprints. It's very apelike. So the next time you're at a museum and see an A. afarensis exhibited with human hands and feet, you'll know they're lying to you.

Let me conclude on this point: A. afarensis did not make the footprint in the volcanic ash in Laetoli. So what did? I suggest the answer is obvious. Human footprints are made by humans! A. afarensis is merely another species of ape. They may be extinct now, but they lived at the same time as modern humans. They are not the ancestors of modern humans.

How Many Times are They Allowed to Redraw the Tree?

Have you ever read a headline that says something like, “New Fossils Forces Scientists to Redraw the Evolutionary Tree of Life”? If you are interested in evolution or creation at all, you've probably read that headline dozens of times. I know I have. Evolutionists love to talk about their much loved nested hierarchy and often trumpet it as though it's “proof” of their theory. It's funny (I mean downright hilarious) that seemingly every day, some new discovery pops up which forces them to redraw the so-called “Tree of Life.”

Just this month, National Geographic reported, “Oldest Human Fossil Found, Redrawing Family Tree.” It seems a jawbone found in Ethiopia has been dated by evolutionists as 500,000 years older than the date previously assigned to the genus Homo. A caption from the article says, “[The jawbone], spotted by Arizona State University grad student Chalachew Seyoum, puts the first members of the human genus Homo in the Afar region of Ethiopia half a million years earlier than previously thought.”

Isn't that interesting? It's especially interesting in light of the lie frequently spoken by evolutionists – Richard Dawkins in particular – which says, "Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours." Just one fossil, huh? Flying colors, huh? Well here you go! Consider your theory disproved! Alas, they really don't mean it when they say a single, out-of-date-order fossil would disprove their theory thus I correctly identify it as a lie. When a fossil is discovered that upsets their theory of when or where some species evolved, then evolutionists simply redraw their nested hierarchy.

Now, in the fairness of full disclosure, the article goes on to say that this new find supposedly helps fill some gaps in their theory. Homo habilis had long been considered the ancestor of all Homo species. However, there was yet another jaw bone (labeled, AL 666-I), found some years earlier, that “suggests that an even more primitive "ghost lineage" of Homo must have existed.” Ah. I guess that even before this new fossil was found, the evolutionists' precious “nested hierarchy” was already in need of a tuning. It's never the neat package evolutionists tout it as being, is it?

Keep in mind, too, that this new find prompts a need to tweak the tree of life only after a parade of previous finds that were also introduced to us with similar fanfare. Here are a couple more headlines that demonstrate how scientists' previous theories about human evolution also turned out to be very wrong:

“New Fossils May Redraw Human Ancestry,” NY Times, 9/8/2011

[I]f accepted, [this discovery] would radically redraw the present version of the human family tree, placing the new fossils in the center.

“Fossils challenge old evolution theory,” USA Today, 8/9/2007

The discovery by Meave Leakey... shows that two species of early human ancestors lived at the same time in Kenya. That pokes holes in the chief theory of man's early evolution -- that one of those species evolved from the other.

After more than a century since Darwin said we evolved from apes, the fossil record still hasn't shown us any “clear progression” of such a thing happening. Remember too that these headlines are only dealing with alleged human ancestors – the most desirable of fossil finds. Every fossil primate skull that has ever been found for the last several decades is evaluated for a potential place in the ancestral tree of humans. Yet in spite of all their efforts, no clear lines can be drawn. Scientists only continuously rearrange broken branches that may not even belong on the same bush.

But besides human evolution, evolutionists' theories about the evolution of other species are continuously being upset by new discoveries. Here are a few more headlines for your amusement:

“Genetics Redraws Marsupial Family Tree,” US News

“Fossil May Redraw Fish Family Tree,” Star Tribune

“Flock of geneticists redraws bird family tree,” Science News Daily

It doesn't sound like they're sure how anything evolved. I guess it's a good thing evolution really has no impact on science.

Are evolutionists never embarrassed by news like this? I've been told ad nauseum that the so called “tree of life” is evidence of common descent. It's one of the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, often cited by evolutionists while defending their theory. But how can it be evidence for anything if it has to be redrawn every other day? I understand that sometimes people exaggerate headlines in order to attract readers but when you read many of these type articles, you'll see that in most of these stories, some new find indeed does change the previous understanding of how something allegedly evolved. So how many times do they have to be wrong about the theory before people begin to question the theory itself? How many times are they allowed to redraw the tree until people begin to realize there is no tree?!

Does the Bible say that Pi = 3?

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. (1 Kings 7:23)

One of the very first criticisms I remember ever hearing about the Bible is that the Bible teaches that the value of pi is three. Critics who make this claim are referring to this passage from 1 Kings where the Bible is describing a large basin made for the Temple. I wasn't even a Christian when I first heard this claim but even then I thought it sounded a little weak. It wasn't until years later, though, that I began to look at the claim seriously.

The first thing you'll notice is that the passage doesn't really say, “Pi equals three.” In fact, the passages doesn't mention pi at all. I'm pretty sure that at the time this was written, pi had not even been discovered yet. What the passage does do is give the dimensions of a round object and it is from those measurements that people extrapolate backward to calculate pi.

If you remember high school geometry, the circumference of a circle is equal to its diameter times pi (c=dp). In this case, the circumference of the molten sea is 30 and its diameter is 10. So, 30/10 would be exactly 3 – a geometric impossibility. So does it mean the Bible is wrong? Of course it doesn't. There are at least two factors we must consider that aren't included in the text.

First, we do not know exactly what is being measured. For example, exactly what is meant by the word “brim”? I assume the walls of the vessel had a certain width. Is the diameter of the “brim” measured on the inside where the liquid is held or is it measured to the outside? If the diameter is measured on the inside and the circumference on the outside (which is entirely plausible) then we can actually use the measurements of each to determine how thick the walls were.

Knowing what is being measured is not as simple as you might think. Is the altitude of a plane a measure of its height from the ground? Or is it a measure of its height above sea level? Does a plane lose altitude every time it flies over a mountain? If a plane is about to land in Denver, is its altitude only a few feet or is still a mile up? In a drawn circle, the line around the circumference is assumed to have no width. But in reality, the sides of a real world vessel – like a drinking glass – have width. Was the diameter of the brazen sea measured on the inside of the walls or to the outside? It makes a difference.

But besides not knowing exactly where the “brim” was measured, we also cannot forget the very common and acceptable practice of approximating. For example, as I write this, I'm 49 years old. However, I'm not exactly 49 years old – I'm 49 years plus some months, days, hours, etc. My exact age changes by the minute but it's acceptable to only give the year.

We approximate many things. We only ever express our height in feet and inches but our exact height could fall somewhere between the inches. We express our weight in pounds when it is usually pounds plus some ounces. Our driving speed is given in miles per hour. We talk about our income in even thousands.

Even pi is an approximation. When I was in geometry class, we only expressed pi as 3.14. When I was in machine shop, we were always told to use pi to 5 places, 3.14159. But pi is infinitely long so it can never be exactly expressed. No matter how many decimal places you wrote, you are only approximating pi. It would even be correct to say pi is 3 because that's accurate to zero decimal places.

Given the fact that the Bible doesn't use decimal places, it's very likely that the dimensions given for the brazen sea were only approximates. If the diameter of the vessel was 9.68 cubits and the circumference were 30.4 cubits, it would be acceptable to round those to 10 and 30 cubits respectively. There would be no error. Claiming the Bible is wrong for using approximations is akin to calling everyone who expresses his age in years a liar.

For this criticism of the Bible to be valid, the critic must claim to have special knowledge of 2 things: First, he must know with certainty that the dimensions given for the diameter and circumference were both measured on the outside walls of the brazen vessel. He also must know with certainty that the measurements are intended to be exact and not approximations. He cannot possibly know that either is true. In fact, the opposite is more likely the truth in both cases. Which means that people who stubbornly cling to this criticism are liars.

Predestination: A Series on Election, Part 6 – Preservation of the Saints

The final point point, the letter “P” in the acronym, TULIP, stands for the Preservation of the saints or the Perseverance of the saints. It's the idea that once a person is saved, he can never lose his salvation and is sometimes referred to by the phrase, “once saved, always saved.” It's the single point in 5-point Calvinism that I absolutely agree with 100%.

This isn't exclusive to Calvinism and the idea of “eternal security” could be debated separately from the doctrine of Calvin. Many Christians who don't consider themselves Calvinists will still believe in the doctrine of eternal security. I've written about this subject on a few occasions and I'm sure I will write about it again in depth. However, in this post we will discuss the issue primarily from the perspective of Calvinism.

In the light of Calvinism, the key to eternal security lies in the fact that our salvation is entirely the work of God. That is, He elects us, He gives us the desire and ability to believe, and He preserves us in our salvation. Just like we could do nothing to come to Him, neither are we capable of turning away once we're saved. Such a notion is supported by more than a few Scriptures. Here are three examples:

Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will also keep you firm to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Cor 1:7-8)

Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ: (Philippians 1:6)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. (1 Peter 1:3-5)

These verses seem to make it clear that God does not save us then send us on our merry ways. He saves us and then He keeps us.

Arguments that I've heard contrary to the doctrine of preservation all seem rather weak. Some of them, for example, will take a passage where God promises to not take away our salvation and then use them as evidence that we could lose our salvation. Consider this example:

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Rev 3:5)

Now, when I read this passage, I understand it to mean that those who “overcome” (i.e. “are saved”) will not be removed from the Book of Life. However, one person commenting on this passage said the following:

“Notice that God's pencil, which wrote your name in the Lamb's book of life, also has an eraser at the other end. The name can be erased from the book of life if you don't overcome.”

I think it's rather bizarre when God promises to not do something, some people understand it to mean He might do it! Yet these same people often take passages like this and use them to argue the reverse of what they're saying. They are making sort of a negative argument where they focus on what could have happened rather than what is being promised. Negative arguments aren't necessarily a bad thing. I've used them myself. For example, the Bible commands us to study to show ourselves approved (2 Timothy 2:15); I guess that means if we don't study, God doesn't approve. I'm arguing the negative of what the Bible says.

Here are similar, negative verses “free will” advocates use to defend that it is possible to lose our salvation.

But Christ as a son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end. (Heb 3:6)

For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end; (Heb 3:14)

These verses say that we are made partakers of Christ and are of His house. Yet some people focus on the negative of the condition and say our salvation is conditional. That is, we are partakers of Christ only as long as we continue in the faith.

Another person used this analogy:

Someone might argue and say, "You are teaching that salvation must be earned through good works." No, I'm not. Salvation is free, but keeping it is costly. Suppose a friend gave me a brand new car which he paid out of his own money, and simply gave me the title and keys and said, "It's yours, Tom. Enjoy it." All I can do is reach for the keys and title and say, "Thank you!" Let me ask you a question. Is the car a free gift to me or did I have to earn it? It's free, right! But let me ask another question. Is it going to cost me money to keep and maintain the car? Sure it is. I'm going to have to put gas, change the oil, give it tune-ups, wax the car, and so on. The car is costly to keep, but it was free when I received it.

First off, the analogy is flawed. If someone gives me a car, sure it costs me to maintain it; if I don't, then the car might stop running. However, even if it stops running it is still my car! If the giver could came back to me and take it away, then the car was never really mine, was it? But besides that, as we have already seen, God not only saves us but also keeps us. I am confident that I will continue in the faith because it is God who works in me and not anything that I'm doing.

Negative arguments and analogies are the first resort when people argue that we can lose our salvation. Since that is the bulk of their argument, I believe their position is very weak.  

As I've already said, I could write more about this but this post has already gone on long enough. I'm getting off the subject of Calvinism anyway. I'll conclude by saying that the preservation of the saints is not only the fifth point of Calvinism, I also believe it is correct doctrine.