Apemen - Fact or Fallacy?: A Critical Examination of the Evidence [Paperback]

Malcolm Bowden (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 257 pages
• Publisher: Sovereign Publications; 2nd edition (October 1981)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0950604216
• ISBN-13: 978-0950604213
• Product Dimensions: 8.4 x 5.3 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 12.6 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 5.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (1 customer review)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #2,459,430 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

5.0 out of 5 stars A DETAILED CREATIONIST SURVEY (circa 1977) OF THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE, October 19, 2011

By 

Steven H. Propp (Sacramento, CA USA) - See all my reviews
(TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Ape-Men: Fact or Fallacy? (Paperback)

The author wrote in the Introduction to this 1977 book, "In this book I have examined the 'credentials' of those fossil discoveries which are said to be the main links between man and that animal ancestor which he has in common with the apes."

Here are some quotations from this 1977 book:

"Certain characteristics possessed by some fossils ... such as large cheek teeth, small incisors and crowding of heavily worn molars and pre-molars are said to indicate their development towards man, who also possesses these features. Yet the Gelada baboons... which are living today, also have these features." (Pg. 60)
"In the face of this evidence, and the fact that the bones were scattered over a wide area, how it can seriously be maintained that they were intrusive burials defies simply logic." (Pg. 67)
"The flourine content of the Galley Hill bone fragments was ... about 0.4 per cent... it was compared with the bones from the Swanscombe pit, which were found to average 2 per cent. Mainly because of this discrepancy, the Galley Hill bones were promptly declared to be an intrusive burial. But the pit at Swanscombe was over half a mile away from the Galley Hill pit." (Pg. 69)
"Surely, with such statements, it is clear that all that had been found was the skull of a large monkey, and the first descripton of Teilhard's is confirmed by the impressions given by other scientists who visited Pekin during the next few years." (Pg. 83)
"Why was Teilhard not questioned about the fate of the (Peking Man) fossils? Even when he lived in America, he appears never to have mentioned the circumstances of their disappearance." (Pg. 109)
"(Man) existed, made stone tools and used fire at the same time as Pekin and Java man, who could not therefore be his ancestor." (Pg. 154)
"I would contend that all the fossils discovered ... and that are claimed to be ancestral to man, are simply those of different types of apes." (Pg. 161)