Creationist arguments against the fossil record

Metal Minister · Sep 9, 2012

KTskater said:
Miamited,

I have done the research, and currently hear about new research on the topic of human evolution on a day to day basis. I'll be attending graduate school next fall for a degree in forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology. My undergraduate degree is in biological anthropology. I recognize that a bachelor's degree is hardly enough to claim expertise on the subject, but I do have a couple years worth of education on the topic. I also recognize that I'm young, and that you have wisdom that I do not have, simply because you have seen and been through more. I make an effort to check myself on my youthful arrogance and listen to those who have been around longer than I have. I have no intention of offending you or insulting your intelligence. Creationists are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I have fellowship with many of them on a daily basis, however, I am passionate about the truth, and I don't believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis fits the data.

Lucy is considered an upright walker because of the position of the foreman magnum (the place where the spine articulates with the skull), which means that her face is placed at an angle that would be extremely strenuous for a quadruped to see. Along with the the hip joint, the shape of the femur fits that of something that bears more weight that you would see on a pure quadruped, the shape of her pelvis is only something we would see in a being that had the weight of their organs OVER the pelvis (if you look at other ape pelves you will not see the bowl shape that we see in Lucy) she also has a vulgus knee which we see in bipeds, a rolling gait in the foot and forward facing big toe.

To address your comment about dating fossils. We cannot date actual fossils unless there is some sort of organic material present...and since the nature of fossils is that all the organic material has been replaced with minerals, leaving only the hydroxylapatite, we cannot date the actual fossil. Often, if there is organic matter left to date, doing so would destroy a portion of the fossil. That is why they use K/Ar or Ar/Ar dating of the strata.

Also, don't mistake my curiosity within science as a rejection of my Creator. I'm passionate about my Savior and the work on the Cross. I have seen God do the most amazing things in my life. I've had personal manifestations of the Spirit, prayed and see blind eyes healed before my very eyes. I know these things are God both because I sense in my spirit, and because I know that there is no scientific explanation for what I've seen. I, too, pour over the Scriptures and love them dearly. I pray that God gives me the ability to offer myself up as a living sacrifice daily and forgives my pride in what I think I may know.
I am simply in search of the truth, wherever that may lead me.

Everything in your testimony is absolutely wonderful! I'm glad to call you a sibling in Christ! I would however be careful of the word "creationist". If you believe God to be your creator, then you are using a label of others in a derogatory manner that would also fit yourself. "Creationists" come in a range of varieties, from the idea that God created the first cell and then helped evolution throughout history. Others believe that God created everything but waited several billion years before placing man on the earth. Some believe that God created, and then let it go to watch it work on its own. All would be called "creationists" If you believe God is the creator, the starter of life, then my friend, welcome to the "Creationist" side.

KTskater · Sep 9, 2012

Metal Minister said:
All very good points Ted, and something else to consider is the number of times fragments of bone have been given the label of "missing link" only to have it totally refuted only a short time later.

Piltdown man: A complete forgery
Nebraska man: A single tooth, ONE TOOTH, sprouted an entire link, that turned out to be from a pig.
Java man: A skull cap and a handful of teeth with a demure 50 yards away. Also, in their rush to claim a missing link, ignored the human skulls closer to the skull cap and teeth than the demure bone.
Orce man: A few fragments of a skull later found to be from a young donkey.
Neanderthal: Once considered an ignorant knuckle dragger, we now know to be fully human and suffering from arthritis and rickets.
I fully believe that most of these scientists had the best of intentions (with the exception of the obvious fraud) but we see again an instance where a certain mindset places blinders on otherwise brilliant people. Of course one cannot completely fault them, as its human nature to draw on ones worldview to interpret information.

All valid, except for Neaderthal. I'm uncertain where you got the information that Neaderthals are now considered Homo sapiens with diseases, because that's simply not the case. There is debate on whether or not modern humans have Neaderthal DNA or not, which leads to debates on whether H. neaderthalensis and H. sapiens interbred to produce our current population, or the Neaderthals simply died out because humans out performed them in an evolutionary sense.
I will tell you one thing, I find it hard the believe that an entire species showed all of the same characteristics simply because every single one of them had rickets and arthritis. Here's an incomplete list of all the fossil findings of Neaderthals: List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Metal Minister said:
Everything in your testimony is absolutely wonderful! I'm glad to call you a sibling in Christ! I would however be careful of the word "creationist". If you believe God to be your creator, then you are using a label of others in a derogatory manner that would also fit yourself. "Creationists" come in a range of varieties, from the idea that God created the first cell and then helped evolution throughout history. Others believe that God created everything but waited several billion years before placing man on the earth. Some believe that God created, and then let it go to watch it work on its own. All would be called "creationists" If you believe God is the creator, the starter of life, then my friend, welcome to the "Creationist" side.

Thank you! I hope that we can discuss these things peacefully and maintain some unity in the Body. I don't use the term "creationist" in a derogatory manner. It's just a term I've come to use to refer to those who have a literal reading of Genesis. No offense intended. However, you make valid points and I should be more precise with the terms that I use. Blanket terms are a friend to no one in these sorts of discussions.

Metal Minister · Sep 9, 2012

KTskater said:
All valid, except for Neaderthal. I'm uncertain where you got the information that Neaderthals are now considered Homo sapiens with diseases, because that's simply not the case. There is debate on whether or not modern humans have Neaderthal DNA or not, which leads to debates on whether H. neaderthalensis and H. sapiens interbred to produce our current population, or the Neaderthals simply died out because humans out performed them in an evolutionary sense.
I will tell you one thing, I find it hard the believe that an entire species showed all of the same characteristics simply because every single one of them had rickets and arthritis. Here's an incomplete list of all the fossil findings of Neaderthals: List of Neanderthal sites - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My source is "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20. A bit dated I admit, but I was simply making a point about worldview and science. Do we actually have Neanderthal DNA? I would be surprised as all evidence (as far as I know) is fossilized.

And to your edit, Amen!

KTskater · Sep 9, 2012

I've heard of the article but I've never read it. I'll definitely check it out, though.
And my education on the DNA is limited, mostly because my focus has been skeletal biology and not genetics. For now, what I know is that they managed to pull some DNA from femur bones, possibly from marrow that was not fossilized. They ran into some problems with sequencing because of bacteria that had grown in the samples, but managed to get enough to start working on decoding the Neaderthal genome.
However, in November a molecular anthropologist is giving a talk on Neaderthal DNA at my university, so I will be more informed at that point.

Metal Minister · Sep 9, 2012

KTskater said:
I've heard of the article but I've never read it. I'll definitely check it out, though.
And my education on the DNA is limited, mostly because my focus has been skeletal biology and not genetics. For now, what I know is that they managed to pull some DNA from femur bones, possibly from marrow that was not fossilized. They ran into some problems with sequencing because of bacteria that had grown in the samples, but managed to get enough to start working on decoding the Neaderthal genome.
However, in November a molecular anthropologist is giving a talk on Neaderthal DNA at my university, so I will be more informed at that point.

I would only point out, that if there was still marrow in the bones, or it wasn't completely fossilized, and bacteria had been growing in it, that all speaks to a fairly recent (in terms of deep time) death.

KTskater · Sep 9, 2012

Metal Minister said:
I would only point out, that if there was still marrow in the bones, or it wasn't completely fossilized, and bacteria had been growing in it, that all speaks to a fairly recent (in terms of deep time) death.

Oh yes, most definitely. There have been a couple of these anomalies in the last few years regarding organic matter that should have been fossilized. I do recall hearing about a paleontologist finding red blood cells in a T. rex femur (which is much more extreme and shocking than a Neanderthal, which we assume coexisted with AMHS), however, I never found time to do any research on it.

Metal Minister · Sep 9, 2012

KTskater said:
Oh yes, most definitely. There have been a couple of these anomalies in the last few years regarding organic matter that should have been fossilized. I do recall hearing about a paleontologist finding red blood cells in a T. rex femur (which is much more extreme and shocking than a Neanderthal, which we assume coexisted with AMHS), however, I never found time to do any research on it.

Yes, I know what you're talking about. Many of us have said, that logically soft tissue, and especially blood cells, could never survive hundreds of millions of years, and we've pointed out that it lends itself to a "young" earth.

paul becke · Sep 9, 2012

KTskater said:
Floods may very well have caused fossils to form, but to say that a global flood is the only explanation for the fossil record is ignoring data. Local floods that could have easily caused fossil formations. We have places like the Messel pit in Germany, which preserve fossils because of it's great depth and they believe many of the lakes and rivers that existed during the Eocene epoch drained there. (Messel pit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Volcanic ash can also have a similar effect as the rapid laying down of sediment.(Ashfall Fossil Beds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Also, just because the remains of an animal are buried quickly, that doens't meant that it will fossilize. The conditions of heat and pressure needed to form sedimentary rock also need to be present, as well as maintaining an oxygen free environment in order to slow down aerobic decay.
It's actually quite unlikely that an organism will become fossilized, so the fact that we find so many fossils means that there was likely a much more diverse amount of fauna present than what we have discovered.

However, this doesn't really answer my question. We have the fossils and they show a gradual transition from fossil to fossil. How do creationists explain this transition?

As someone who has held the fossils in my hands, I can tell you that the fossil evidence is pretty solid. The vast majority of paleoanthropologists are not just digging up bones and making claims about them. Some do, however, that's typically a result of greed. There are characteristics used to classify simians and anthropoids, in the very same way we have characteristics that define what a canine is. It's not a matter of faith, but scientific classification of animals.
However, you'll note that I didn't mention Ardi or Sahelanthropus, because I'm aware of the controversy of their classification. That ones I did list are widely accepted as human ancestors.

As someone has said, 'There are probably more paleoanthropologists than there are bones that have been discovered.'

paul becke · Sep 9, 2012

KTskater said:
Please don't discredit people who spend their lives dedicated to discovering the truths about the world that we live in, often sacrificing sleep and time with families, by claiming that they haven't considered that the weight of earth would warp a skeleton.

No, KTstater, whatever the truth of your implication concerning the weight of the earth above a skeleton warping it, scientists, indeed, the vast majority of academics are NOT disinterested dedicated truth-seekers at all. They are in it as a career choice, for money, status, prestige, etc; which is why Max Planck remarked that science advances one funeral at a time; and, 'A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.'

The history of great advances in medicine, besides the great benefits eventually afforded by them, is one long and very squalid chronicle of vicious attacks on the would-be paradigm-changer by the current luminaries of his or her professional establishment.

If you read the blog, Uncommon Descent, you will soon be disabused as to the empirical credentials of paleoanthropology, as things stand.

paul becke · Sep 9, 2012

KTskater said:
I've heard of the article but I've never read it. I'll definitely check it out, though.
And my education on the DNA is limited, mostly because my focus has been skeletal biology and not genetics. For now, what I know is that they managed to pull some DNA from femur bones, possibly from marrow that was not fossilized. They ran into some problems with sequencing because of bacteria that had grown in the samples, but managed to get enough to start working on decoding the Neaderthal genome.
However, in November a molecular anthropologist is giving a talk on Neaderthal DNA at my university, so I will be more informed at that point.

You will find plenty of the most up-to-date research findings of molecular biologists in relation to evolution on Uncommon Descent, and the case against extra-species evolution is more than compelling.

KTskater · Sep 9, 2012

I'll check out the blog and see what I find. I've read "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe, so I assume it will be many of the same arguments, but I may be pleasantly surprised.

miamited · Sep 9, 2012

KTskater said:
Miamited,

I have done the research, and currently hear about new research on the topic of human evolution on a day to day basis. I'll be attending graduate school next fall for a degree in forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology. My undergraduate degree is in biological anthropology. I recognize that a bachelor's degree is hardly enough to claim expertise on the subject, but I do have a couple years worth of education on the topic. I also recognize that I'm young, and that you have wisdom that I do not have, simply because you have seen and been through more. I make an effort to check myself on my youthful arrogance and listen to those who have been around longer than I have. I have no intention of offending you or insulting your intelligence. Creationists are my brothers and sisters in Christ, and I have fellowship with many of them on a daily basis, however, I am passionate about the truth, and I don't believe that a literal interpretation of Genesis fits the data.

Lucy is considered an upright walker because of the position of the foreman magnum (the place where the spine articulates with the skull), which means that her face is placed at an angle that would be extremely strenuous for a quadruped to see. Along with the the hip joint, the shape of the femur fits that of something that bears more weight that you would see on a pure quadruped, the shape of her pelvis is only something we would see in a being that had the weight of their organs OVER the pelvis (if you look at other ape pelves you will not see the bowl shape that we see in Lucy) she also has a vulgus knee which we see in bipeds, a rolling gait in the foot and forward facing big toe.

To address your comment about dating fossils. We cannot date actual fossils unless there is some sort of organic material present...and since the nature of fossils is that all the organic material has been replaced with minerals, leaving only the hydroxylapatite, we cannot date the actual fossil. Often, if there is organic matter left to date, doing so would destroy a portion of the fossil. That is why they use K/Ar or Ar/Ar dating of the strata.

Also, don't mistake my curiosity within science as a rejection of my Creator. I'm passionate about my Savior and the work on the Cross. I have seen God do the most amazing things in my life. I've had personal manifestations of the Spirit, prayed and see blind eyes healed before my very eyes. I know these things are God both because I sense in my spirit, and because I know that there is no scientific explanation for what I've seen. I, too, pour over the Scriptures and love them dearly. I pray that God gives me the ability to offer myself up as a living sacrifice daily and forgives my pride in what I think I may know.
I am simply in search of the truth, wherever that may lead me.

Hi skater,

So, then I am to understand that there is no way you can reconcile the bone fragments referred to as Lucy as being a monkey of some type who's body was crushed and buried in the flood of God's making in Genesis?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

KTskater · Sep 10, 2012

In my opinion, I cannot see how crushing could move the big toe to the front of the foot, change the structure of the knee, widen the pelvis, and change where the spine articulates with the skull. It could, and does, distort the skeleton, but as we've seen from the 9/11 attacks, weight upon remains doesn't change the structure of remains. All of those individuals that the forensic anthropologists helped ID after the attacks still looked completely human. I know it's not the same as millions of years, but the principle still stands.

Lucy isn't a monkey, but an ape. She fits all the characteristics of what we consider an ape. However, when speaking about this, remember that humans have all the characteristics to be considered great apes, along with chimps, gorillas and orangutans.

miamited · Sep 10, 2012

Hi skater,

Ok.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Papias · Sep 10, 2012

MM wrote:

I fully believe that most of these scientists had the best of intentions (with the exception of the obvious fraud) but we see again an instance where a certain mindset places blinders on otherwise brilliant people. Of course one cannot completely fault them, as its human nature to draw on ones worldview to interpret information.

There have been a few mistakes and a forgery, but these few cases that YECs bring up are hardly significant compared to the literally hundreds of hominid fossils that give us our modern understanding of human evolution, not to mention the mountains of extrafossil evidence (such as DNA, biochemical, physiological, and so on). More importantly, none of these problems has been discovered and solved by creationists, but rather the scienctific process itself, working as it is supposed to, using the very built-in error correcting mechanisms that make it's tested results so reliable.

Do we actually have Neanderthal DNA? I would be surprised as all evidence (as far as I know) is fossilized.

Yes, we do. The entire Neandertal genome has been sequenced from multiple specimens.

I would only point out, that if there was still marrow in the bones, or it wasn't completely fossilized, and bacteria had been growing in it, that all speaks to a fairly recent (in terms of deep time) death

.

Incorrect. DNA has been sequenced from older specimens as well. None of the Neandertal specimens showed any evidence in disagreement with their ages established through other means. Similarly, the T-Rex data, while unexpected, is not evidence for a flood or a more recent date than 65 million years ago. The discoverer herself points this out, and is a bit shocked that evolution deniers have misrepresented her findings to argue for YEC.

Everything in your testimony is absolutely wonderful! I'm glad to call you a sibling in Christ! I would however be careful of the word "creationist". If you believe God to be your creator, then you are using a label of others in a derogatory manner that would also fit yourself. "Creationists" come in a range of varieties, from the idea that God created the first cell and then helped evolution throughout history. Others believe that God created everything but waited several billion years before placing man on the earth. Some believe that God created, and then let it go to watch it work on its own. All would be called "creationists" If you believe God is the creator, the starter of life, then my friend, welcome to the "Creationist" side.

Yes, perhaps a better term is a good idea. I've seen many people use the term "evolutionary creationist" instead of "theistic evolution supporter". One problem is that the term "theistic evolution" is well established in the wider culture.

On another note, MM, thanks again for helping us all have a cordial discussion, as you have in the past.

God Bless-

Papias

Creationist arguments against the fossil record

New Year, Still Old School!

Well-Known Member

New Year, Still Old School!

Well-Known Member

New Year, Still Old School!

Well-Known Member

New Year, Still Old School!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Ted

Well-Known Member

Ted

Listening to TW4

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency