Free The Falsification of History: Our Distorted Reality by John Hamer Page B

evolutionists disingenuously use the fact that findings of fossil records are open to many different interpretations, to their own advantage and as ‘proof’ of their own assertions.   The discovered fossils are usually not sufficient to make a firm analysis, but are generally comprised of incomplete and fragmented bone pieces.   This is why it is so simple for them to distort the available data and use them fraudulently to portray the desired objectives.

    Belief in the theory of evolution has come to be seen as almost a life-style choice, a mode of thinking, even an ideology rather than just simply a theory like any other by its evangelical defenders who do not deem it necessary to take steps to prevent the distorting of data or even the committing of more serious, deliberate forgeries.    Indeed, extremist advocates of evolutionary ideology do not hesitate to undertake any kind of distortion necessary in order to interpret the fossil records in favour of evolutionary theory.   It is a classical scientific mistake to build any kind of theoretical framework from the basis of an incorrect initial assumption and yet I believe that this fundamental ‘mistake’ is made time after time by the proponents of evolutionary theory.

    "Theory shapes the way we think about, even perceive, data… We are unaware of many of our assumptions.   In the course of rethinking my ideas about human evolution, I have changed somewhat as a scientist.   I am aware of the prevalence of implicit assumptions and try harder to dig them out of my own thinking.   Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual data… I am more sombre than I once was about what the unwritten past can tell us."   David Pilbeam, anthropologist, Harvard University.

    It is true that ideological expectations can and do influence the interpretation of any given data set and the fact that fossil records are open to many different interpretations raises doubts on the reliability of the whole science of paleo-anthropology which is mostly under the control of the evolutionists.   Certain prejudices and expectations will undoubtedly have an impact on the veracity of data extrapolation.

    “…We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extra-sensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.”   Sir Solly Zuckerman, palaeontologist at Birmingham University, England.
     
    Since fossil records are usually unorganised and incomplete, the estimations based on them are inevitably totally speculative.   As a matter of fact, the reconstructions (drawings or models) made by evolutionists based on the fossil remains are often treated in a speculative way in consort with the evolutionary theory.   Since most people are more easily influenced by visual rather than written data, the aim of evolutionists is to entice them to believe that these reconstructed creatures have really existed in the past. 
     
    For this reason alone, the reconstructions of fossils and skulls are always designed to meet the needs of the evolutionary theory.   Evolutionist researchers often set out from a single tooth, a mandibular fragment or even a tiny bone of the arm, draw semi-human-like imaginary creatures and then present these to the public sensationally as a link in the evolution of man.   These drawings and reconstructions have indeed played an important role in the visualisation of the ‘primitive man’ image in the minds of people.
     
    Reconstructions based on the bone remains can only reveal the general characteristics of the object at hand.   Yet, the real defining details are soft tissues often muscles or tendons that do not leave an impression in the rocks as they decay too rapidly.   Therefore, with the