- How Fossils are Dated
- The Geologic Column
- What Do the Fossils Show?
- Punctuated Equilibrium – Another theory of evolution
- The Cambrian Explosion
- What Does This mean to Creation?
How Fossils are Dated
Contrary to popular belief, the dating of fossils is very subjective and arbitrary. Sometimes fossil dating is really a circular reasoning:
- The ages of rocks are used to date fossils
- The ages of fossils are used to date rocks.
Here is a quote from a peer reviewed science journal saying just that:
“The procession of life was never witnessed, it is inferred. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to represent a process because the enclosing rocks are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” (O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, 1976, p. 53) (emphasis mine)
When a date is assigned to a fossil, it is also very important to pick the “correct” date. There are dates that are already accepted by evolutionists, and the date of a new fossil has to fit so as to not disrupt what has already been decided.
The classic situation of the problems with dating a fossil was the dating of fossil skull KNM-ER 1470. It took ten years for scientists to agree on the age of one skull. The ten year process was discussed in depth in this book:
Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils
by Marvin L. Lubenow
This book analyzes all of the hominid fossils. The appendix has a very detailed discussion of the dating of the fossil skull KNM-ER 1470. The science journal “Nature” is where the researchers published their research regarding this skull and their papers in “Nature” are quoted extensively. According to the many quotes from “Nature”, fossil skull KNM-ER 1470 took ten years to date. Bones of Contention follows the process step by step. Over the ten years the work was published in many issues of the English scientific journal “Nature”. The book took ten years of many articles and quoted them profusely.
When this fossil was found, many different radiometric dating methods were used and many different ages were given. The scientists took ten years to analyze all of these dates. The “bad” dates were thrown out because the geological levels have all been previously dated based upon the assumption that evolution is true.
They had to pick a “good” date, one that fit in good with their preconceived assumption that evolution is true. There weren’t many “good dates” to pick from. They ended up, at the end of ten years, to give the skull a date based on some fossil pigs found nearby that had already been assumed to be a certain age also based upon the assumption that evolution is true. None of the ages from any of the radiometric techniques were used. They were all “bad” ages.
Here is an article by Marvin L. Lubenow, author of the book Bones of Contention discussed above. It is a summary of the appendix in the book where he discussed this fossil: The Pigs took It All
The Geologic Column
The layers of the “geologic column” were dated before radiometric dating was invented. The index fossils were not dated radiometrically. Their age was assumed initially by the belief in evolution, how long they supposedly took to evolve. Then the rocks are given that age. The assumption that evolution is true is used to support an old age for the earth.
What Do the Fossils Show?
The fossil record is evidence of a world-wide flood. Dead animals do not just lie there and wait to be fossilized. They rot or get eaten. Fossilization requires immediate covering with sediment. The minerals gradually replace the living tissue. All of the fossils are of separate and distinct types of animals, all of which have living representatives today.
Each basic kind of animal appears in the fossil record complete, with no ancestors in an incomplete form. There are no in-between forms. We are told that mammals evolved from reptiles although the method by which they evolved has not been discovered. All 32 orders of mammals appear as distinct groups in lower Tertiary rock. The most highly specialized, the flying bats and swimming whales, appear at the beginning of the mammal explosion as fully developed and separate kinds.
All fossils are of distinct types. For example, reptiles and mammals are just plain different, totally, and there is nothing in between. There is no fossil evidence of reptiles slowly turning into mammals over millions of years. All the fossils are of the same basic types that we still have, nothing in between. Fossils are of birds, or amphibians, or mammals, or fish, or etc. There is just no proof in the fossil record that any one kind of animal evolved into another.
Punctuated Equilibrium – Another theory of evolution
The lack of the “transitional forms” was thought to be such a big problem for the theory of evolution that evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould came up with a new theory called Punctuated Equilibrium which explains why there are no transitional forms.
The theory is basically this:
1. Evolution happened.
2. There are no transitional fossils, therefore.
3. Evolution was done in giant leaps, leaving no evidence.
So basically, one theory of evolution with no evidence replaced another theory of evolution with no evidence.Here is some excerpt from an article Steven Jay Gould wrote about transitional fossils:
Gould, Stephen Jay, “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, vol. 86 (June/July 1977), pp. 22-30.p. 22 “The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change, and the principle of natural selection does not require it-selection can operate rapidly.“p. 24 “As a Darwinian, I wish to defend Goldschmidt’s postulate that macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated and that major structural transitions can occur rapidly without a smooth series of intermediate stages.“p. 24 “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.“p. 28 “The ess
ence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that natural selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.”
The Cambrian Explosion
Here is an excerpt of an article which talks about the Cambrian Explosion and says what it is:
Douglas, Erwin, James W. Valentine, and David Jablonski, “The Origin of Animal Body Plans,” American Scientist, vol. 85 (March/April 1997), pp. 126-137.p. 126 “All of the basic architectures of animals were apparently established by the close of the Cambrian explosion; subsequent evolutionary changes, even those that allowed animals to move out of the sea onto land, involved only modifications of those basic body plans. About 37 distinct body architectures are recognized among present-day animals and from the basis of the taxonomic classification level of phyla.”
These men are all evolutionists. Here are links to their credentials:
Research Paleobiologist and Curator Paleozoic Mollusks, Interim Director National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, D.C
James W. Valentine
Active Emeritus Department of Integrative Biology University of California, Berkeley, CA
Chair and Professor: Committee on Evolutionary Biology Professor: Department of Geophysical Sciences Charles Schuchert Award, Paleontological Society Fellow, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
Here is an excerpt from another evolutionist, Stephen J. Gould:
Gould, Stephen Jay, “A Short Way to Big Ends,” Natural History, vol. 95 (January 1986), pp. 18
“Studies that began in the early 1950s and continue at an accelerating pace today have revealed an extensive Precambrian fossil record, but the problem of the Cambrian explosion has not receded, since our more extensive labor has still failed to identify any creature that might serve as a plausible immediate ancestor for the Cambrian faunas.”
He believed in evolution but did not believe that the fossil evidence supported that belief. He was so concerned about the lack of transitional fossils that he developed a new theory called Punctuated Equilibrium that says evolution happened so fast it did not leave the fossil evidence. In short, he developed a new theory with no proof to replace another theory with no proof.
What Does This mean to Creation?
Here is an article about what the Cambrian Explosion means to creation: Exploding Evolution
Here is an excerpt of that article:
Creationists have long pointed out the problem for evolution theory, namely that all the major groups (phyla) of life which we know today appear in the Cambrian with no evolutionary ancestors. This is why evolutionists refer to it as an ‘explosion’ of evolution. There are no groups which have been identified as ancestral to any of the phyla, and geologically these phyla ‘seem to have appeared suddenly and simultaneously‘…..
Evolutionists at present have no real answer. However, the paradox vanishes when one removes the glasses of evolutionary presuppositions and sees the data in the light of biblical creation/Flood. The entire set of unique body plans ever created is represented in all rocks bearing substantial numbers of animal fossils. The ‘Cambrian’ creatures, many of which are now extinct, are not ‘primitive ancestors’ to today’s, but are complex creatures in their own right, with no trace of evolutionary ancestors.
If there are no ancestors to these animals in the fossil record then there is no proof that evolution took place.
11 responses to “Fossils are Evidence of a World-Wide Flood”
Pingback: Charles Darwin described the problems with his theory in his book “Origin of Species” | Reasons Why I Believe in God
Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Outline of X-Evolutionist.com | Reasons Why I Believe in God
Pingback: Reasons Why I Believe in God: Outline of my website X-Evolutionist.com | Life in Our Backyard
Wonderful. Thank you so much for writing this article.
Thank you so much for commenting on this article. Your just too wonderful.
Good god. There are other ways to date objects which overwhelmingly suggest ancient fossils, e.g. carbon dating. Have you ever heard of statistics? The evidence is in, and your one outlier does nothing to contradict a myriad of evidence in support of evolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion#How_real_was_the_explosion.3F
Please, don’t do science when you think you already know the answer.
From your comment it’s obvious your knowledge concerning the many weaknesses and challenges facing scientists and the dating of fossils etc is lacking.(see references)
I had a good chuckle at your ‘myriad of evidence in support of evolution’ comment, we hear this all too often from Darwinists, haha. What evidence would that be butch? Vestigial organs, junk DNA or a favourite of mine, transitional fossils? Or perhaps the mighty tree of life?
Also, wikipedia is hardly a reputable source. Hell my lecturers won’t even allow us to reference it (too many errors and bias).
Your closing remark is uncalled for. You attempt to take the high ground, but your explanation does not elevate you so.
You say Stephen Gould “believed in evolution but did not believe that the fossil evidence supported that belief.”
Now lets see what he really thought. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium#Common_misconceptions
‘In an often quoted remark, Gould stated, “Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.”‘
I guess this quote shows that very much yes he did believe that the evidence did support Evolution.
Surely you would agree with Stephen Gould that it doesn’t matter if “Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level” beacuse as you have clearly stated “Each basic kind of animal has the capacity for adapting to any ecological zone they come across.” which shows that for you a Kind has a taxonomic rank of an Order. Well below the need taxonomic rank of species.
Do you the really big problem that you have with disputing the fossil record and saying that Noah’s flood is the only cause is that you then have to explain how there can be fossils in the Grand Canyon and yet still have the Grand Canyon form. That makes no sense.
Now about the Grand Canyon. It isn’t straight. In fact it winds it’s way through Colorado Plateau in the same way that any river does. If, as according to answersingenesis, it was created in a few days then it should have caved a straight trench. Can you please explain.
You say “The earth is only thousands of years old and not millions of years old” so far you have not proved that this is true or explain away flaws in your own logic. Like how the food is the cause of fossils. The flood is also created the canyons. The Grand Canyon has fossils. So somehow the fossils were laid down in layer in the Grand Canyon and yet was somehow carved out of this layered rock at the same time!!!!! This makes no sense.