My Creationist Fossil Record Challenge

[Subduction Zone]

Bear.Fr00t's fossil record challenge inspired me. The fossil record fits the model made by evolutionary science perfectly. Can any creationists devise a model that explains why we see the fossils the way that we do from a creationist viewpoint?

No creation "scientist" has been able to make a reasonable model to date. It could be an interesting exercise and you might be helping your side.

 

[Split Rock]

Bear.Fr00t's fossil record challenge inspired me. The fossil record fits the model made by evolutionary science perfectly. Can any creationists devise a model that explains why we see the fossils the way that we do from a creationist viewpoint?

No creation "scientist" has been able to make a reasonable model to date. It could be an interesting exercise and you might be helping your side.

Clearly it reflects a combination of:

1. Terrain variations. Different species live(d) at different altitudes and would thus be buried higher or lower in the sediment produced by The Flood.

2. Differential avoidance: Different species would be able to out-run the flood waters at different rates dependent on their speed of locomotion. Thus, mammals outran reptiles which outran turtles, etc. This is why mammals and birds (which fly) are on top and turtles and lumbering dinosaurs are further down in the column. Fish are on the bottom 'cause they were already in the water.

3. Hydrologic sorting: Fossils were sorted by size and weight by the raging waters of the flood. Thus, trilobites are small and on the bottom, while elephants are big and on the top.

Don't ask me to actually test any of these ideas, of course.

 

[Lethe]

. Terrain variations. Different species live(d) at different altitudes and would thus be buried higher or lower in the sediment produced by The Flood.

You can actually do a fluid dynamic experiments at home, for yourself, to verify that a single mixing event does not generate nice stratified layers. Let alone tens of thousands of them.

Get transparent, sealable, Rubbermade storage container at least 1 ft deep.
Grab sand, grab gravel, grab somedirt, grab some clay.
Combine in container, add water and mix.

Good luck getting layers.

Here, let me save you the trouble: Noah's Flood - debunked (Part 1) - YouTube


In order to get neat stratification into single-component layers, you need many deposition events.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hey! Come on now! How are the creationists going to learn unless we let them make some of their own mistakes first.

I advise patience. Let's see the creationist viewpoint. Then you can pounce!

 

[AV1611VET]

Can any creationists devise a model that explains why we see the fossils the way that we do from a creationist viewpoint?

Sure.

Build a railroad track, starting at Point A and going straight to Point B, 288 trillion feet away.

Place about 100,000 railroad ties in between them (representing known fossils) and claim the railroad represents the Theory of Transportation.

 

[Loudmouth]

You can actually do a fluid dynamic experiments at home, for yourself, to verify that a single mixing event does not generate nice stratified layers. Let alone tens of thousands of them.

Get transparent, sealable, Rubbermade storage container at least 1 ft deep.
Grab sand, grab gravel, grab somedirt, grab some clay.
Combine in container, add water and mix.

Good luck getting layers.

Here, let me save you the trouble: Noah's Flood - debunked (Part 1) - YouTube


In order to get neat stratification into single-component layers, you need many deposition events.

You should also include rocks with different ratios of isotopes, and then show how the hydraulic sorting also sorts rocks based on those tiny differences in Argon-40 content so that specific fossils will always be found under rocks with specific Argon-40 content.

 

[CabVet]

Sure.

Build a railroad track, starting at Point A and going straight to Point B, 288 trillion feet away.

Place about 100,000 railroad ties in between them (representing known fossils) and claim the railroad represents the Theory of Transportation.

No AV, wrong analogy, let me make another one that actually reflects the situation:

Build a railroad track, starting at Point A and going straight to Point B, 288 trillion feet away.

Place about 100,000 railroad ties in between them and number every single one in ascending order starting from Point A (representing known fossils). Evolution claims that the order in which the ties appear is the order in which the railroad was built.

The challenge in the OP is simply to explain why we see this very clear order that reflects evolution but not the order in which things are created in Genesis.

 

[46AND2]

Sure.

Build a railroad track, starting at Point A and going straight to Point B, 288 trillion feet away.

Place about 100,000 railroad ties in between them (representing known fossils) and claim the railroad represents the Theory of Transportation.

Good news, AV. All you have to do is show a railroad tie that should be in position 91,432, but actually lies in position 3,132.

Otherwise, your point is meaningless.

 

[AV1611VET]

Good news, AV. All you have to do is show a railroad tie that should be in position 91,432, but actually lies in position 3,132.

You mean like rabbits in the Precambrian?

 

[46AND2]

You mean like rabbits in the Precambrian?

Or humans in the Jurassic, or horses in the Devonian, or tigers in the Ordovician, or...

 

[CabVet]

You mean like rabbits in the Precambrian?

Or flowering plants appearing before animals like the Bible suggests.

 

[Tiberius]

Bear.Fr00t's fossil record challenge inspired me. The fossil record fits the model made by evolutionary science perfectly. Can any creationists devise a model that explains why we see the fossils the way that we do from a creationist viewpoint?

No creation "scientist" has been able to make a reasonable model to date. It could be an interesting exercise and you might be helping your side.

Durr. To test us, obviously...

 

[AV1611VET]

Or flowering plants appearing before animals like the Bible suggests.

Or whales before humans.

 

[Split Rock]

Or whales before humans.

psst...whales did evolve before humans...

 

[AV1611VET]

psst...whales did evolve before humans...

Oh, sorry ... I was thinking Genesis 1.

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

The challenge in the OP is simply to explain why we see this very clear order that reflects evolution but not the order in which things are created in Genesis.

Let's take a look at the Genesis account of life being created on earth:

1. Grass, herbs, trees, etc
2. Marine life, birds
3. Land animals
4. Homo Sapiens

I'm no expert, so I'm interesting to hear from the experts. Do plant fossils appear before animal fossils? Another issue may be birds appearing before land animals, what do the fossils show?

Thanks

 

[Tomk80]

Let's take a look at the Genesis account of life being created on earth:

1. Grass, herbs, trees, etc
2. Marine life, birds
3. Land animals
4. Homo Sapiens

I'm no expert, so I'm interesting to hear from the experts. Do plant fossils appear before animal fossils?

Nope.

Another issue may be birds appearing before land animals, what do the fossils show?

Thanks

Land animals, then birds.

 

[CabVet]

Let's take a look at the Genesis account of life being created on earth:

1. Grass, herbs, trees, etc
2. Marine life, birds
3. Land animals
4. Homo Sapiens

I'm no expert, so I'm interesting to hear from the experts. Do plant fossils appear before animal fossils? Another issue may be birds appearing before land animals, what do the fossils show?

Thanks

Fossils show animals before trees, by a long shot. Here is a good summary (notice flowering plants appearing only after dinosaurs):

 

[verysincere]

I'm no expert, so I'm interesting to hear from the experts. Do plant fossils appear before animal fossils? Another issue may be birds appearing before land animals, what do the fossils show?

As indicated by others, the answer is NO.

So, is it obvious that the "answers" which God has placed in abundance throughout his creation tell us without any doubt that (a) living organisms on this planet adapted and diversified over many many millions of years, and (b) evolutionary theory provides powerful explanations for that history of life on earth? Yes. And so do we conclude that the Genesis account is wrong? Or do we realize that our cherished TRADITIONS about the Genesis account need to be re-examined to see what the Hebrew text of Genesis does and doesn't say.

To break that process down, does Genesis 1 claim to present a CHRONOLOGICAL ACCOUNT of creation? Yes or no? Sort of?

Why or why not?

[These are the same kinds of questions I would present to a "Intro to the Old Testament 101" class for undergraduate non-majors. Methodologically they are not so much focused on the Bible per se as the study of literature in general, especially the literature from cultures unfamiliar to us.]

 

[Bear.Fr00t]

Fossils show animals before trees, by a long shot. Here is a good summary (notice flowering plants appearing only after dinosaurs):

Thanks, how is this progression determined. Is it by carbon dating or by inspecting the fossil column?