Creationist arguments against the fossil record

[KTskater]

I'm interested in hearing how creationists explain away the fossils we've discovered. I've heard bits and pieces of different arguments, but I've never had anyone actually address the individual fossils and explain why science has interpreted them wrongly.
Now, every professor I've ever had has openly and plainly admitted that the early "pre-primate" fossil record is patchy at best. They have discovered an almost perfect skeleton of an Adapiform called Darwinius masillae, but that still leaves gaps.
However, the fossil record starting with australopithecines shows the gradual change an adaptations from one form to another. I'd like to know how creationists explain the gradual decrease in prognathism, the movement of the foramen magnum, the changes in the shape of the pelvis, changes in the knees, changes in the dentition, and the changes in the spine.
Start with A. afarensis and work through H. habilis, H. erectus, and Neaderthal. Feel free to address A. africanus, A. ramidus or and of the less well known pre-sapien fossils in the Homo genus, if you feel so inclined.
The evidence seems so solid to me. I want to know where you guys are coming from when you disagree.

 

[Smidlee]

Start with A. afarensis and work through H. habilis, H. erectus, and Neaderthal. Feel free to address A. africanus, A. ramidus or and of the less well known pre-sapien fossils in the Homo genus, if you feel so inclined.
The evidence seems so solid to me. I want to know where you guys are coming from when you disagree.

You will probably be interested in "Science & Human Origins." While the writers are ID and not creationist they do make the case the evidence is not solid as some proclaim.
It's not possible to dig up bones out of the ground and prove they are your ancestor so it's just a matter of faith.

Oreopithecus bambolii could have been an up-right walking ape?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216132034.htm

 

[miamited]

hi skater,

I think the basic argument with the fossil record is in knowing how fossils are formed. First, in studying fossils we find that what is generally left as a fossil is the hard tissue. Bones most generally or shells of crustaceans.

Animals die all the time. Every day for several millineum. You walk through the forests of North America and you know the deer and elk and bears have died there. However, when they die their carcasses lay on top of the ground and disintegrate. We don't find thousands of fossils of dear and elk and bear even though we know that they have been dying for centuries. Why is that?

Well, the answer is simple. Fossils are formed when a carbon life form is covered and because of the covering the hard tissue does not quickly disintegrate. Instead the soil becomes solid and then the soft tissue of the carbon life form disintegrates and because of the compaction of the surrounding soils a void is left in the material from the hard tissue that takes years to disentegrate in such an environment, which becomes a fossil. The only explanation that explains this and the fact that many fossils are found in wierd places can only logically be explained by some cataclysmic event. The flood.

Fish die in the sea everyday and yet the sea bottom is not littered with billions and billions of fossils. Why is that? Because they die and lay on the sea bottom until their carbon bodies disintegrate. The only way that we can find to produce fossils of sea life is to cover them with a deep covering of soil or other material that compacts and then the soft tissue breaks up and disentigrates, but the hard tissue leaves a void that is then a fossil. The only explanation for this is some cataclysmic event. The flood. Here is a site that explains it:

DISCOVERING FOSSILS | What is a fossil? How do fossils form?

Now, this site proposes that the gradual buildup of sediment covers the bones and they become a fossel, but that can't be. We know that sediment doesn't build up so fast that it would cover a bone structure before it readily disintegrated. Especially fish. Fish bones will naturally disintegrate in the sea in 5-10 years. Otherwise we would have an entire sea bed of fish bones. It takes much longer than that for a compacted sediment layer to settle. You can't just take fish bones and put them under 2 or 3 or 5 inches of sea bed and expect to find a fossil in 10 years. The sediment is not compacted enough to hold the disintegrated skeletal form. No. To form a fossil the skeletal form must be buried under several feet of earth that is compacted from the weight above it.

Now, man ventures to suppose that there may have been some other cataclysmic event, but the only such event that we are told covered the entire earth that would explain fossils being found nearly worldwide would be a worldwide cataclysmic event.

So far, no provable event has been posited that explains such a worldwide cataclysmic event. Therefore, to date, the only explanation that a born again believer understands would have caused such things as fossils is the flood.

Here's another site that explains the type of material in which we find fossils and explains how that material is formed. Notice that the material, sedimentary rock, is explained as soil that has compacted. This doesn't happen overnight or even in a few thousand years. The only explanation is some major and sudden event that causes a deluge of earth to form over a dead carcass. The flood.

Now, as always, everyone is free to believe what they will, but these are fairly well proven facts that explain how fossils are formed. Many animals have died in the forest over the last 500 years, but we don't seem to find that the gradual layering of sediment has created a new level of fossils. Why is that? The only real explanation for fossils is that at some time and because of some cataclysmic event carbon life forms have been covered by tons of earth. How did that happen?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[KTskater]

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?

You will probably be interested in "Science & Human Origins." While the writers are ID and not creationist they do make the case the evidence is not solid as some proclaim.
It's not possible to dig up bones out of the ground and prove they are your ancestor so it's just a matter of faith.

Oreopithecus bambolii could have been an up-right walking ape?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/02/110216132034.htm

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.

 

[miamited]

hi skater,

You responded: 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.

Yes, well that's pretty much my point. The difference between what they believe is not proveable, but merely theorized. What I believe has been told me from God's word and I am a man who believes steadfastly that God does not lie.

Then you responded: Volcanic ash can also have a similar effect as the rapid laying down of sediment.

Yes, it certainly can, but it is of very limited scope. Now, for someone who believes the earth and the universe to be billions of years old, it is easy to think, "Well, surely at some time there were probably volcanoes all over the earths surface." But for those with a strict biblical worldview it isn't the case. Further, if a volcano is the reason for the fossilization, then all surrounding the fossil should be ash, which we can very easily prove because of the specific nature of ash.

Then you responded: 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.

I agree, which is exactly why we don't see fossils all over the place. It can't just be an inch or two or three layer of naturally settling sediment, such as the site that I posted would posit. It must be tons of material that has enough weight above it to sedimentize the surrounding soil. This, could come only from a very, very few theories. Only one of which I know happened because God said so.

You then posted: 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.

Possibly, but there are also other 'possibilities'. Yes, I absolutely agree that before the flood there were some different creatures, but I also know that in a cataclysmic event such as the flood is described to be and understanding the resultant landslide of earth and mud flowing that many creatures that are quite normal to today may be misinterpreted because of the crushing and grinding that may likely have happened to their bodies as they were covered in the tons of earth. Remember, that in a fossil we don't have any of the bones to test, only the mirror image carved in stone and we can't expect that the creatures form would have been exactly what it really was in life, if we understand that they are where they are because suddenly tons of mud and rock rolled over their bodies. The one's that ultimately wound up on top or in the more shallower depths of the mud would have just naturally disintegrated as all other carcasses do, but they would have more than likely been the ones in their original life shape.

So, my position is that if you take, say a robin, and roll it under 5 tons of mud, is it going to be identifiable as a robin when you come back to get it? Actually, for all you know, the robin may have been torn in half under the weight and force of the mud and you only have half a bird. And that half is going to be all scrunched and deformed and more than likely not at all identifiable as a robin and may well be then, thousands of years later, 'found' and misidentified.

When I take all of these 'possibilities' and throw them in the mix, quite frankly, the idea that some of the found fossils might be intermediary life forms becomes quite tenous.

As I understand it we have fossilized remains that don't look like any animal living today on the planet. Right, but if that creature found itself being buried under tons of rolling and sliding mud, should it?

Just some other possibilities to consider. For me, I'm going with God's word. He created this realm about 6,000 years ago. I base that on the understanding that, yes, He created all things in this realm in 6 days and on the last of those six days created Adam and then caused to be written an account of Adam's descendents and then Noah's descendants all the way to Abraham. I can fairly easily determine, within a few years when Adam lived, and because I believe all that God revealed in the account of the creation before Adam lived, up to and including the creation of Adam, it's a fairly simple mathematical feat. As far as I know, within that timeframe, the only explanation for the fossil record is the flood and understanding the forces of the flood, I can fairly easily understand the confusion regarding the identity of many fossils.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[KTskater]

hi skater,

You responded: 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.

Yes, well that's pretty much my point. The difference between what they believe is not proveable, but merely theorized. What I believe has been told me from God's word and I am a man who believes steadfastly that God does not lie.

Then you responded: Volcanic ash can also have a similar effect as the rapid laying down of sediment.

Yes, it certainly can, but it is of very limited scope. Now, for someone who believes the earth and the universe to be billions of years old, it is easy to think, "Well, surely at some time there were probably volcanoes all over the earths surface." But for those with a strict biblical worldview it isn't the case. Further, if a volcano is the reason for the fossilization, then all surrounding the fossil should be ash, which we can very easily prove because of the specific nature of ash.

Then you responded: 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.

I agree, which is exactly why we don't see fossils all over the place. It can't just be an inch or two or three layer of naturally settling sediment, such as the site that I posted would posit. It must be tons of material that has enough weight above it to sedimentize the surrounding soil. This, could come only from a very, very few theories. Only one of which I know happened because God said so.

You then posted: 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.

Possibly, but there are also other 'possibilities'. Yes, I absolutely agree that before the flood there were some different creatures, but I also know that in a cataclysmic event such as the flood is described to be and understanding the resultant landslide of earth and mud flowing that many creatures that are quite normal to today may be misinterpreted because of the crushing and grinding that may likely have happened to their bodies as they were covered in the tons of earth. Remember, that in a fossil we don't have any of the bones to test, only the mirror image carved in stone and we can't expect that the creatures form would have been exactly what it really was in life, if we understand that they are where they are because suddenly tons of mud and rock rolled over their bodies. The one's that ultimately wound up on top or in the more shallower depths of the mud would have just naturally disintegrated as all other carcasses do, but they would have more than likely been the ones in their original life shape.

So, my position is that if you take, say a robin, and roll it under 5 tons of mud, is it going to be identifiable as a robin when you come back to get it? Actually, for all you know, the robin may have been torn in half under the weight and force of the mud and you only have half a bird. And that half is going to be all scrunched and deformed and more than likely not at all identifiable as a robin and may well be then, thousands of years later, 'found' and misidentified.

When I take all of these 'possibilities' and throw them in the mix, quite frankly, the idea that some of the found fossils might be intermediary life forms becomes quite tenous.

As I understand it we have fossilized remains that don't look like any animal living today on the planet. Right, but if that creature found itself being buried under tons of rolling and sliding mud, should it?

Just some other possibilities to consider. For me, I'm going with God's word. He created this realm about 6,000 years ago. I base that on the understanding that, yes, He created all things in this realm in 6 days and on the last of those six days created Adam and then caused to be written an account of Adam's descendents and then Noah's descendants all the way to Abraham. I can fairly easily determine, within a few years when Adam lived, and because I believe all that God revealed in the account of the creation before Adam lived, up to and including the creation of Adam, it's a fairly simple mathematical feat. As far as I know, within that timeframe, the only explanation for the fossil record is the flood and understanding the forces of the flood, I can fairly easily understand the confusion regarding the identity of many fossils.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

1. When I use the term "they believe" in reference to scientists, it means that the finding is falsifiable, not that it is unprovable. In fact, the nature of a hypothesis is that is MUST BE FALSIFIABLE. If it is not, then it is simply an idea. A theory is a hypothesis has positive data backing it up, and has not been falsified. The theory of gravity could be proven false, however, all of our data (with a few exceptions) back up Newton's hypothesis.
This is why I have issues with people trying to use science to disprove God. God is an idea that is neither provable nor falsifiable. Therefore, science cannot touch it.

2. In regard to the volcanos, you are completely correct. And we have fossils that we know were the result of ash. We've actually developed a dating technique called argon-argon dating that works specifically with volcanic ash. One of the most famous is "Lucy", the first Australopithecine discovered (Lucy (Australopithecus) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Others are the Laetoli footprints (Laetoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). If the earth didn't have volcanos in these places, where is the ash coming from?

3. All of these possibilities are considered by scientists.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.
If you ever have time and you have any type of university with a decent anthropology department or a museum of natural history near, go look at the fossil remains. I think you'll be shocked by how clear the transition is. The characteristics are found on (usually) multiple fossils, found in different areas. The likelihood that the crushing of the earth caused the exact same characteristics in all the fossils of JUST that species is almost zero.

 

[Smidlee]

As someone who has held the fossils in my hands, I can tell you that the fossil evidence is pretty solid.

Unless holding the fossil gives you some magical powers or the bone spoke to you the interpretation is still based on faith.

 

[Papias]

Smidlee wrote:

Unless holding the fossil gives you some magical powers or the bone spoke to you the interpretation is still based on faith.

And unless you gave your doctor magical powers, any diagnosis he makes on your condition is based on faith? I guess you don't go to doctors, right?

Papias

 

[Smidlee]

Smidlee wrote:


And unless you gave your doctor magical powers, any diagnosis he makes on your condition is based on faith? I guess you don't go to doctors, right?

Papias

You do know the difference between studying something in the present which science is at it's best and studying something in the past especially before written history don't you?
Now if doctor looked at my bones and claimed in 100 years I'll have exactly 12 great grandchildren I would questioned his diagnosis. It's one thing comparing fossil bones with living creatures while it another trying to claim it's your ancestor.

 

[miamited]

Hi skater,

You responded: This is why I have issues with people trying to use science to disprove God. God is an idea that is neither provable nor falsifiable. Therefore, science cannot touch it.

I couldn't possibly agree more with that statement. However, if you carry that statement to its logical conclusion regarding the creation as described in the Scriptures, i.e. that God's work in creating this realm was all a miracle, then the natural conclusion would be that science will never be able to disprove or prove that events occurred just as the Scriptures tell us. Then, working from that frame of reference, all that science would attempt to 'prove' as happening before that event would be a matter of miscalculation, or as the Scriptures say, misunderstanding the 'natural laws'.

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,...

Is not the argument made that we now have 'knowledge' which 'proves' the creation account cannot possibly be true? If that knowledge causes us to deny the truth of God is it not then 'falsely called knowledge'?

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this worldhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 rather than on Christ.

Are not the teachings that go against the miraculous 'cause' of God in creating all things based on the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ?

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Would it not be agreed by most that the understanding and working out of evolutionary theory has set itself up against the knowledge of God? After all, don't most godless believe that there is no God because we can now explain the creation through naturalistic, scientific evidence? Let's consider that there was no understanding or knowledge of evolutionary theory. Wouldn't that almost 'assume' that most people would agree, then, that there is some creator? Yes, I understand that there are those among the fellowships who attempt to meld God's creation with 'evolutionary fact', but do we have any real reason to believe that these people know and understand the 'truth'? Just because they can reconcile the account of God's creation with scientific knowledge based on the basic principles of this world, do we then hail them as the truth proclaimers, despite God's repeated claim that He made it all in six days?

You responded: In regard to the volcanos, you are completely correct. And we have fossils that we know were the result of ash. We've actually developed a dating technique called argon-argon dating that works specifically with volcanic ash.

Oh, I agree that we have fossils that are believed to have come from volcanic eruption, but it doesn't apply to the majority of the fossil record. There must be some other explanation for most fossils that have been found. The majority of the fossil record comes from sedimentary formation without any ash content apparent.

As regards Lucy:



This is all we actually have of her. Honestly, and I will readily admit that I'm no anthropologist, but I don't see enough cranial material to be able to make, without doubt, some of the claims that are made as regards skull formation and size of brain. Notice also, as I wrote previously, that nearly every bone is broken. For all we really know this body could have been torn to shreds by the forces of the flood, or whatever cataclysmic event one cares to allow as the cause of fossilization.

Just so you know the 'other side' of the story, here's what the ICR, that venerable stronghold of idiots, as some would refer to them, says about Lucy:

Lucy's skeleton was about 40% complete and was a remarkable discovery when unearthed by Don Johanson in 1974. The creature would have stood 3.5 feet tall, about the height of a chimpanzee. Its skull was grossly ape-like, and also about the size of a chimp's, with very little in the way of human-like features. Lucy possessed very long fingers with a decided curve to them, like modern apes possess for tree-swinging activities. From other A. afarensis finds, it is believed Lucy possessed long toes with a curvature that also suggested prehensile and arboreal behavior. Lucy's upright-turned shoulder joint enabled suspensory behavior and her hands, wrists, and arms were powerfully prehensile. And so you ask, what makes Lucy such a great missing link? Angles of bones in the (reconstructed) hip joint and knee joint suggest that Lucy spent part of her time walking upright. That is as strong as the evidence gets that she was related to humans. Virtually no anatomists will support Johanson's claim that Lucy was a habitual upright walker, yet this is what most textbooks boast.

So, and you are free to check these things out on your own, the idea that the body that covered this skeletal form was necessarily an upright walking 'man/monkey' is based on fairly flimsy evidence.
I Love Lucy?
If you pull up and read the attached article, you will find that the remaining 'evidence' is that there were seemingly human footprints found in the area. Now, the evolutionary theory suggests that these footprints must have come from 'Lucy' because man wasn't around yet, otherwise she doesn't qualify as an intermediate form. The biblical model would be that man was around and while 'Lucy' swung from the trees and ate bananas, man walked around underneath her just like in an old Tarzan movie. The flood came and entombed Lucy on the ground right beside the footprints that were entombed at the same time. So, suffice it to say, that this find of some few broken bones doesn't really 'confirm as true' any evolutionary hypothesis. There are answers for both positions. I'll stick with God's truth.

often sacrificing sleep and time with families, by claiming that they haven't considered that the weight of earth would warp a skeleton.

Oh my, now I'm to consider that because scientists make great sacrifices akin to our brave soldiers in Afghanistan, they should be believed. Uh, no, I'm afraid it's going to take a bit more than feeling sorry for someone for me to believe them. I feel sorry for drug addicts but I don't necessarily believe them when they want to borrow a few dollars to buy 'groceries'. I can well imagine that the magicians of Pharoah may well have lost considerable sleep and time with family trying to figure out how to copy the many miracles God performed through Moses, but I'm not going to allow that sorrow for them to cause me to believe them. I just want to see and consider all the facts and if there is any way, yes, any way that I can align those 'facts' with the account of Scripture, then I'm going with that alignment. However, each man is free to choose what he will store in his cranium as the evidence of the 'facts'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Papias]

smidlee wrote:

You do know the difference between studying something in the present which science is at it's best and studying something in the past especially before written history don't you?
Now if doctor looked at my bones and claimed in 100 years I'll have exactly 12 great grandchildren I would questioned his diagnosis. It's one thing comparing fossil bones with living creatures while it another trying to claim it's your ancestor.

Sorry, but in both cases, science is used to make a hypothesis, test it against the evidence, and then accept or reject the hypothesis about something that happened in the PAST. The doctor, in looking at the evidence from the PAST effects of the disease on your body, is drawing conclusions about what kind of disease affected your body in the PAST months.

In neither case, not the doctor looking at your bones, nor the paleontologist looking at our ancestor's bones, is anyone predicting how many great grandchildren you will have.

Speaking of written history, you don't just accept things because they are written, right? So Atlantis was real, huh?

Papias

 

[Smidlee]

smidlee wrote:



Sorry, but in both cases, science is used to make a hypothesis, test it against the evidence, and then accept or reject the hypothesis about something that happened in the PAST. The doctor, in looking at the evidence from the PAST effects of the disease on your body, is drawing conclusions about what kind of disease affected your body in the PAST months.



Papias

Why do you have to have everything spelled out to you? The doctor goes on knowledge that has been repeated over and over in our present time. While yesterday is in the past I experienced yesterday but not something millions year ago.
P.S Doctors doesn't seem to be threaten by someone getting a second opinion. Evolutionist sometimes seems more dogmatic of what happen millions year ago than my doctor in the present.

 

[Greg1234]

God is an idea

This is awesome.

 

[Greg1234]

And unless you gave your doctor magical powers, any diagnosis he makes on your condition is based on faith? I guess you don't go to doctors, right?

Papias

Diseases of the mind and body are symptoms of death in the fall (see bible). A doctor's instruments do not cure death nor does his cast heal the bone.

 

[KTskater]

Miamited,

At least we're getting somewhere now. You partially addressed the one of the actual fossils, although I would like to know a couple things about the article. First of all, why is a geologist commenting on human anatomy and physiology? If he was a biological anthropologist, an anatomist or even a medical doctor, I'd feel more comfortable taking him at his word.
Second of all, this isn't reputable information. I don't know where this gentleman got his information, he doesn't cite any of these anatomists that he's making claims for. I have absolutely no way of verifying whether anyone actually said any of the things he is writing.
Do you have any articles about this that have the sources cited?

Also, I wasn't playing a pity card for scientists. However, if you're interested in how hard they work you can find measurable data for that here: New article: The Results Are in: Scientists Are Workaholics | Wired Science | Wired.com Link to actual peer-reviewed article in Journal of Infometrics: http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2686
My point in bringing up the lives of scientists is that most are thorough, and have absolutely no thoughts about disproving the Bible. Let's stop pretending that all scientists are minions of Richard Dawkins. Even a good chunk of the atheists that I'm friends with write Dawkins off as a loon. They simply go where the evidence takes them.
Do some have an agenda? Yes. Do most? No.

 

[miamited]

Hi skater,

Yes, that's the general claim that is always leveled at creationists. Our scientists are dummies. No problem though. I'm not one so I'm not offended.

Look, friend, the article gives you plenty of information which you can check with whoever you believe to be a 'reputable' scientist in the field. You see, one of the things I've learned to do is dig beyond the surface and try to get to the underlying facts on which claims are supported. Now, the IRC article claims that the only 'proof' that is being used to determine that this creature was some intermediate man/monkey, (and yes before you go off on the, "We didn't come from monkeys argument!", you may put whatever contrasting animal fits your understanding), but the claim made here is that the only reason that this creature is considered an intermediate life form is the design of the hip to walk upright. So, ask the question! Find the answer! Is that the truth? If it is, certainly I can name at least 3 or 4 animals that walk the earth today that would fit that bill. Now, the claim is made that this example is slightly different than what we see today. Maybe, but notice that nearly every other bone is broken and so who's to say that this hip bone is in the exact shape it was in when it was in the living body it occupied? The claim is made that the finger bones are ape like. So, let me see, we've found maybe a nearly perfectly preserved set of bones that seem to have fit a body about the size of a champanzee, with fingers that are pretty much like chimpanzee finger bones with a shoulder joint that is similar to a chimpanzee's. Hmmmm. Are you really so gullible that you'd throw away the truth of God based on such flimsy evidence? OK.

Here's a National Geographic article. Of course, they're all idiots, too, I understand you'll say, but the article makes several points that quite honestly, just cause me to stop and scratch my head at the 'thinking' of scientists.

At one point it makes the claim that scientists have long believed that once upright walking became evolutionized we no longer had creatures that climbed trees. Huh? We still have creatures that climb trees everyday and I'm walking pretty upright most of the time.

The article repeatedly makes the claim that the finger bone appears more like that of monkey. Huh? So, on what grounds are we claiming that it isn't?

The article says that Lucy's near ancestors still swung from trees. Huh? Well, on what basis are we claiming that Lucy didn't swing from tress?

Now, about your complaint of my dismissal of crying over scientist's workaholicism. Look, let's get real here. I can post at least a dozen 'studies' that will show that bankers can be workaholics, stock traders, realtors, etc. Quite frankly, just about everyone who is reasonably successful in some professional field will, at some time in their career, become a 'workaholic' to their profession. Being a good pastor almost always creates some form of 'workaholicism'. They forego family and friends and special occassions because they always have someone in the congregation tugging at them to take care of their need. Does that mean I should believe every banker, stock trader, realtor and pastor?

I am honestly quite flabbergasted at this argument that you've thrown into the mix that somehow because some scientists are workaholics they should be believed. Listen, as far as I am concerned, I will repeat again, I just want to know the truth and I am very aware of the warnings of the Scriptures against what is falsely called knowledge. So, I don't take most articles; I don't accept a lot that is in books that goes against God's truth without doing some really, really careful examination of the facts because of that very warning.

Now, are all scientists working to deceive? No, not consciously in most cases. However, I remember once having a set of World Book Encyclopedias. Great books for the most part, but oddly enough in this matter of fossils, if you looked up, say, "How are fossils dated?" You would find an explanation that fossils were dated by the strata of rock they were found in. Then, if you went and asked, well, "How are rock strata dated?" You would find that explained by the fossils found within the strata. Now, I know that the authors of the World Book Encyclopedia didn't intentionally set out to deceive anyone, but the indefinite loop was there.

Now, I've done a smattering of programming and an 'indefinite loop' is created when you fail to put in the program the information that it needs to solve the problem, but allow the program to skip back to some previous point of the program. The computer will just continually run to the end of the program and then back to that point and then to the end of the program and back to that point and the end of the program and then back to that point in a perpetual loop. This is what the WBE was doing.

How do I date this fossil? Oh, get the date of the rock. Well, how do I date the rock? Oh, go back and date the fossil. Well, how do I date the fossil? Go get the date of the rock! Well, how do I date the rock. GO GET THE DATE OF THE FOSSIL!!! WELL, HOW DO I GET THE DATE OF THE ROCK!!!! I'M NOT GOING TO TELL YOU AGAIN, GO GET THE DATE OF THE FOSSIL!!!!!

The Scriptures speak that in the last days there will be a great deception and apostasy of the church. That the deception is so strong that even the elect might fall under its force.

Now, friend, I believe that we are in the last days. I believe that that deception and apostasy is well upon us. I can see fellowships of believers that teach all kinds of false religious ideas about God. I can see this idea of 'evolution' and 'billions year old creation' taking hold even among the fellowships and as I mentioned previously, I can't find any single 'fact' that allows the godless comfort in what they believe, then the idea of what Carl Sagan teaches, "That the universe is all there is and the universe has always been."

Now, as I said, each man is free to believe who and what they choose to believe, but for me, God said six days more than once. Sure we can maybe let it slide that whenever God created all things nobody knew what a day was, but when God repeated it to Moses and His people only 3500 years ago, everyone knew what day was. God then numbered each day, which still today is accepted Hebrew practice that means the word day following a number is a literal, one rotation of the planet day, at most. Yes, it may still mean the hours of daylight, but I'm not willingto shorten the creation days either because God then said that each day consisted of an evening and a morning just as a normal ordinay day does today.

I believe that my Creator, who loves me more than anyone ever could, has not left me without ample evidence to understand His great power, authority and wisdom that I might understand that He made all this for me and for you and for mankind in general. The earth has not existed for billions of years because it was created to be the place where God was going to make man and work out His great plan of salvation that began with the first, "Let there be..." and will culminate with God declaring from His throne, "Now the dwelling of God is with men and they will be His people and He will be their God."

You see, skater, as I have read and pored over the Scriptures and continually and deperately called out for God for wisdom through His Holy Spirit to understand the things written in them, I have been impressed with an understanding that shows this entire realm of creation is a carefully set out plan by a God who is love and because of that love creates creatures to love. He created the angels to love. He created us to love. The Scriptures portray a clear picture that one day, both angels and men will be judged. Those who have not believed and trusted in Him will be cast out and those who have will be given His promise of eternal life with Him. The life which will begin with God's proclamation found in the Revelation chapter 21.

The God I know; the God I love; the God who has plainly explained all that He has done that I might have eternal life, asks me to believe Him. So, yes, when such theories and guesstimates pop up as what are being espoused here, my, "that doesn't fit with what God has said" meter goes off and I tread very carefully. Because the last thing I want to hear on that day of God's judgment is, "You, you were one of the unbelieving."

Now, some claim that that means that all the 'evidence' that we have would then make God out to be a liar. No, that means that all the 'evidence' that we have is being misunderstood and misinterpreted and man is making himself a liar based on what he falsely calls knowledge.

Believe what you will, friend, but I'm going with God. There are plenty of unanswered questions in the 'Lucy' fossil and depending on who you believe for those answers, you can either find that the Lucy fossil fits perfectly within God's truth or it doesn'. If you're comfortable with believing that the Lucy fossil declares the simple understanding of God's account of the creation as impossible to believe, then so be it. My 'evedence' suggests that the Lucy fossil fits perfectly in God's account.

The creature lived, no doubt. The creature was covered by tons of mud and rock sediment from a flood in which the great springs of the deep were opened to cause great havoc and destruction upon the earth and that creature died in that cataclyism. The hypothesis and postulates that we now, some 3500 years later, draw from the study of that creature are certainly suspect, in my understanding.

You believe that you are here today because some creature at some point became a man. I believe that I am here today because God created with His own Spirit out of the dirt of the earth the first man Adam and I am, through Noah, one of Adam's progeny. You believe that the earth and the universe are at least millions and probably billions of years old. I believe that God merely spoke a perfect earth and all that is on it, and a perfect universe into existence in six rotations of the earth and that the entire and only purpose of His creating both the earth and the universe - was for me. I believe that I can date the age of the earth and the universe because God has written to me a calander. Beginning with Adam and then Seth and then Enosh and then Kenan and Mahalalel and Jared, etc. Then God gave to me the years of their life from offspring to offspring to Noah and then from Noah to Abraham and then Abraham to Egypt and then Egypt to the land of promise. All very easy. All very simple. And all I have to do is believe God over man.

Does it mean that people often call me foolish and stupid? Yea, but it's ok. It isn't them that I'm counting on for eternal life. It's the one in whom I believe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

BTW, that should sufficiently answer your OP as regards how I am able to dismiss the evidence of the fossil record.

Believe God. Just believe Him. It isn't hard and He loves you more than you will ever truly be able to know or understand, when you believe God. When you believe God you will begin to see just how much more powerful and awsome and gracious and wise He really is, beyond what you have ever thought to imagine. Just believe God and everything will be just as He has promised for those who believe.

God bless you.
IN Christ, Ted

 

[Papias]

Smidlee wrote:

Why do you have to have everything spelled out to you? The doctor goes on knowledge that has been repeated over and over in our present time. While yesterday is in the past I experienced yesterday but not something millions year ago.

Why do you have to have everything spelled out to you? The doctor goes on knowledge that has been confirmed by examination of things in the PAST, including studies that happened in the PAST, be that 10 years, 100 years, or 100 million years. You certainly don't think that a doctor only goes by what she remembers herself doing, do you?

P.S Doctors doesn't seem to be threaten by someone getting a second opinion. Evolutionist sometimes seems more dogmatic of what happen millions year ago than my doctor in the present.

Of course biologists, paleontologists, etc, get a second opinion. They get a third, ninth, and fortyith opinion. The findings that make up our current evolutionary understanding are vetted through hundreds of journal articles and confirmation by dozens of other experts in the field. Do you really think that our knowledge of evolution is less cross-checked than any person's medical diagnosis, even it they got a dozen "second opinions"?

Greg wrote:

A doctor's instruments do not cure death nor does his cast heal the bone.

Oh, that's right - I forgot that you, Greg, along with denying evolution, deny modern medicine, including the idea that diseases are caused by germs. Well, I have to give you credit for being more consistent than most other creationists, who will deny evolution on one breath, and in the next ignore a literal reading of their Bible by thinking that modern medicine is real.

Papias

 

[KTskater]

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.

 

[Metal Minister]

Hi skater,

You responded: This is why I have issues with people trying to use science to disprove God. God is an idea that is neither provable nor falsifiable. Therefore, science cannot touch it.

I couldn't possibly agree more with that statement. However, if you carry that statement to its logical conclusion regarding the creation as described in the Scriptures, i.e. that God's work in creating this realm was all a miracle, then the natural conclusion would be that science will never be able to disprove or prove that events occurred just as the Scriptures tell us. Then, working from that frame of reference, all that science would attempt to 'prove' as happening before that event would be a matter of miscalculation, or as the Scriptures say, misunderstanding the 'natural laws'.

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to your care. Turn away from godless chatter and the opposing ideas of what is falsely called knowledge,...

Is not the argument made that we now have 'knowledge' which 'proves' the creation account cannot possibly be true? If that knowledge causes us to deny the truth of God is it not then 'falsely called knowledge'?

See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy,http://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-14 which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this worldhttp://www.biblestudytools.com/colossians/2.html#cr-descriptionAnchor-15 rather than on Christ.

Are not the teachings that go against the miraculous 'cause' of God in creating all things based on the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ?

We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

Would it not be agreed by most that the understanding and working out of evolutionary theory has set itself up against the knowledge of God? After all, don't most godless believe that there is no God because we can now explain the creation through naturalistic, scientific evidence? Let's consider that there was no understanding or knowledge of evolutionary theory. Wouldn't that almost 'assume' that most people would agree, then, that there is some creator? Yes, I understand that there are those among the fellowships who attempt to meld God's creation with 'evolutionary fact', but do we have any real reason to believe that these people know and understand the 'truth'? Just because they can reconcile the account of God's creation with scientific knowledge based on the basic principles of this world, do we then hail them as the truth proclaimers, despite God's repeated claim that He made it all in six days?

You responded: In regard to the volcanos, you are completely correct. And we have fossils that we know were the result of ash. We've actually developed a dating technique called argon-argon dating that works specifically with volcanic ash.

Oh, I agree that we have fossils that are believed to have come from volcanic eruption, but it doesn't apply to the majority of the fossil record. There must be some other explanation for most fossils that have been found. The majority of the fossil record comes from sedimentary formation without any ash content apparent.

As regards Lucy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lucy_Mexico.jpg

This is all we actually have of her. Honestly, and I will readily admit that I'm no anthropologist, but I don't see enough cranial material to be able to make, without doubt, some of the claims that are made as regards skull formation and size of brain. Notice also, as I wrote previously, that nearly every bone is broken. For all we really know this body could have been torn to shreds by the forces of the flood, or whatever cataclysmic event one cares to allow as the cause of fossilization.

Just so you know the 'other side' of the story, here's what the ICR, that venerable stronghold of idiots, as some would refer to them, says about Lucy:

Lucy's skeleton was about 40% complete and was a remarkable discovery when unearthed by Don Johanson in 1974. The creature would have stood 3.5 feet tall, about the height of a chimpanzee. Its skull was grossly ape-like, and also about the size of a chimp's, with very little in the way of human-like features. Lucy possessed very long fingers with a decided curve to them, like modern apes possess for tree-swinging activities. From other A. afarensis finds, it is believed Lucy possessed long toes with a curvature that also suggested prehensile and arboreal behavior. Lucy's upright-turned shoulder joint enabled suspensory behavior and her hands, wrists, and arms were powerfully prehensile. And so you ask, what makes Lucy such a great missing link? Angles of bones in the (reconstructed) hip joint and knee joint suggest that Lucy spent part of her time walking upright. That is as strong as the evidence gets that she was related to humans. Virtually no anatomists will support Johanson's claim that Lucy was a habitual upright walker, yet this is what most textbooks boast.

So, and you are free to check these things out on your own, the idea that the body that covered this skeletal form was necessarily an upright walking 'man/monkey' is based on fairly flimsy evidence.
I Love Lucy?
If you pull up and read the attached article, you will find that the remaining 'evidence' is that there were seemingly human footprints found in the area. Now, the evolutionary theory suggests that these footprints must have come from 'Lucy' because man wasn't around yet, otherwise she doesn't qualify as an intermediate form. The biblical model would be that man was around and while 'Lucy' swung from the trees and ate bananas, man walked around underneath her just like in an old Tarzan movie. The flood came and entombed Lucy on the ground right beside the footprints that were entombed at the same time. So, suffice it to say, that this find of some few broken bones doesn't really 'confirm as true' any evolutionary hypothesis. There are answers for both positions. I'll stick with God's truth.

often sacrificing sleep and time with families, by claiming that they haven't considered that the weight of earth would warp a skeleton.

Oh my, now I'm to consider that because scientists make great sacrifices akin to our brave soldiers in Afghanistan, they should be believed. Uh, no, I'm afraid it's going to take a bit more than feeling sorry for someone for me to believe them. I feel sorry for drug addicts but I don't necessarily believe them when they want to borrow a few dollars to buy 'groceries'. I can well imagine that the magicians of Pharoah may well have lost considerable sleep and time with family trying to figure out how to copy the many miracles God performed through Moses, but I'm not going to allow that sorrow for them to cause me to believe them. I just want to see and consider all the facts and if there is any way, yes, any way that I can align those 'facts' with the account of Scripture, then I'm going with that alignment. However, each man is free to choose what he will store in his cranium as the evidence of the 'facts'.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

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.