Product Description

Seeking to disprove the theory of human evolution, the author examines the fossils of the so-called "ape men."

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #328414 in Books
• Published on: 2004-10-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 400 pages

Features

• ISBN13: 9780801065231
• Condition: NEW
• Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
• Click here to view our Condition Guide and Shipping Prices

Customer Reviews

Interesting and Enjoyable
I have to admit that I almost didn't bother to read this book because it has the word "Creationist" in the title. Fortunately I realized my own petty reasoning and bought the book, title and all.

I think that it is always healthy to have two perspectives on every issue, especially one as emotionally charged as the Evolution debate. The author does a good job of presenting an alternative interpretation of the different hominid fossils. It is evident that he has devoted a lot of time into achieving expertise in this field of study. The chronological charts that he pulls together with statistics are hard to find anywhere else.

The first two hundred pages make the book well worth the read. It is actually refreshing to hear someone speak candidly about their religious beliefs when discussing the subject of Evolution and it yields that kind of credibility that one does not sense when reading Gould or Dawkins, who attempt to manipulate the reader into religious conclusions while feigning scientific objectivity.

Ironically the author appears much kinder to evolutionists than to some of his fellow creationists, who get skewered in the last 50 pages or so of infighting. This section didn't interest me much - I would have preferred to learn more about the Australopithecus fossils.

It is interesting how paleontologists can write so confidently about their interpretation of the hominid fossils and yet contradict each other, usually unbeknownst to the casual reader. A book like this exposes the contradictions and corrections, helping the student obtain a greater perspective.

Not all that is gold glitters
As a publishing and practising physician, I was impressed by this book. Despite its popular tone and its casual observations, its strengths should not be underestimated - he cites some of the best contemporary work with critical familiarity, unveils some hideous flaws of reasoning and practice in standard works, and shines valuable insights into the field. Well worth studying objectively.

Must Read
Lubenow takes the results of his research over the past 35+ years and illustrates how the hominid fossil data published among the scientific community does not fit the theory of evolution as they claim it does. Evolutionists, of course, would disagree but Lubenow takes the fossil record as a whole, instead of a selective sampling of the data, and shows that even while using the established evolutionists' dates, the fossils do not fit evolution. One of his greatest strengths is his comprehensive fossil hominid chart demonstrating his main premise. Why is such a chart lacking in the evolutionist arsenal? Perhaps because it shows the exact opposite of what they'd like the public to believe.

Lubenow shows that the entire hominid fossil record can be explained, perhaps even better, without the use of evolution. After astutely observing that it is absolutely impossible to prove that any fossil has ever evolved into another (such relationships can only be speculated), he takes the reader on an enlightening journey through the human fossil material. By showing that the supposed transitional fossils are contemporaneous with everything from modern Homo sapiens to Australopithecus, he shows that such a timeline does not favor evolution any more than it does special creation. His conclusions are solid and straightforward.

How does Lubenow explain the existence of Homo neanderthalensis, Homo erectus, Homo habilis, and the like? His answer is as simple as it is surprising: the fossils we have are all either humans (neanderthalensis/erectus/(some habilis)) or they are extinct apes (some habilis)/Australopithecus. How does he account for anatomical differences between modern H. sapiens and the others? He explains that such differences could easily be the result of rickets/syphillis and similar pathological conditions. In other words, human fossils simply show a great deal of variation among the same species. Humans are all human, apes are all apes. Just becuase a neanderthal has thick brow ridges and slightly flatter skull doesn't make it a different creature, it's a human like you and me. He backs up his diagnosis by joining it with his theory that the world-wide Genesis flood caused the ice age and led to exactly the kind of conditions necessary to cause those pathological conditions.

Evolutionists like to claim that relatively recent discoveries (like Dmanisi) show that the gap between apes and man is illusory. They neglect to mention, however, that such discoveries were just as much a shock to the evolutionist community (i.e. blew 'African Eve' out of the water). What they fail to see is that such transitional fossils are contemporaneous with fossils that can be qualified as modern H. sapiens (KNM ER 1470, 1590, 1472, 1481) so the transition is disqualified. In addition, their claim that the cranial capacity of the Dmanisi skulls bridges the gap between Australopithecus and Homo is silenced by the fact that they resort to a pathological explanation of Homo floresiensis. If H. floresiensis is pathological, then the Dmanisi skulls could be as well. If H. floresiensis is not pathological, then hominids with a similar cranial capacity to the supposed gap species (even smaller, in fact) were around just 18,000 years ago. So much for that theory!

Lubenow's book can weather the storms. Read this book and you'll learn some amazing things. Sure, the book is geared toward creationists and rightly so, I don't know any evolutionists who can stomach the term 'Genesis flood'. As Lubenow thoroughly demonstrates, evolutionists already believed in evolution as a 'fact' long before they had their fossil data. When the data doesn't match what they expect (and he shows that this is often the case) they just pick the data they like and throw out the rest. I can't think of a better text to debunk the idea that evolution (human evolution in this book) is a 'proven fact based on evidence' nothing could be further from the truth.