Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils

Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils

by Marvin L. Lubenow
3.8 5

Paperback(Revised and Updated Edition)

$22.81 $28.00 Save 19% Current price is $22.81, Original price is $28. You Save 19%.
View All Available Formats & Editions
Eligible for FREE SHIPPING
  • Get it by Thursday, January 25 ,  Order by 12:00 PM Eastern and choose Expedited Delivery during checkout.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

See All Customer Reviews

Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils 3.8 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 5 reviews.
ShawnM More than 1 year ago
This is arguably the best book in print to give an evolutionist a headache. Whether you are a creationist or an evolutionist, this is a book you should read. There is no way an evolutionist can read Bones of Contention and remain a hard-core believer in evolution. If a Darwinist reads this book and remains committed to the goo-to-you theory, then they are in denial.
Anonymous More than 1 year ago
Guest More than 1 year ago
Think the fossil ¿record¿ proves evolution? You won¿t after you¿ve read this extraordinary book. If you want to cling to popular views of our origins, you won¿t like it at all. But if it¿s truth you¿re after, don¿t miss it.
Guest More than 1 year ago
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 tr
Guest More than 1 year ago
This book reveals many of the problems with evolution using bone fragments as 'evidence.' Then it proceeds to hurt the movement and embarrass Christians by claiming Neanderthals are human. In recent years, the evidence has overwhelming mounted to show that Neanderthals are NOT human, and even most ardent naturalists have agreed. Realize what I am saying: For decades naturalists wanted Neanderthals to be human to prove evolution. Now we have a major paradigm change in which they have given it up and some creationists are trying to give it back to them!! As usual, young-earth creationists continue to unnecessarily embarrass the intelligent design movement, drive skeptics away and confuse Christians. Granted, their bad science and emotional campaigns have cost them a lot in recent years, but they still strive to brow beat you into believing their version is the 'literal' truth, when it is at best a contradictory superficial theory. Read some real scholarship by Dembski, Behe and Ross.