Young e?rth creationists commonly point t? the fossil record in ?rder to support the?r position. In one instance, the article "The Fossil Reco?d: B?coming Mo?e Random All the Time" by John Woodmorappe, has som? very good points t? it (Footnote 1). Read it ?f you like, (it? ? long one), ?ut you don't h?ve t? much farther than the abstract to ?ee problems. Actually, s?me are problems, ?nd som? ?re deceptions.
The a?stract states that "The reality of the geologic column is predicated ?n the bel?ef t?at fossils have restricted rang?s in rock strata." Of course it is...this has ?een th? "reality" ?ll along. Hi? wording makes ?t sound as ?f th? geologist ?as be?n ?p t? som? deceit...?ut this is not the case. He goes on to ?laim, "as more and more fossils ?re found, the ranges of fossil? keep increasing." Welcome to the world ?f science! This is nothing new. As new discoveries are ?ade, the timelines that we thought species were living ?s extended. S? what! He states that stratigraphic-range extension is n?t the except?on but th? rule. OF course it is, ?y its very nature it HAS to be. You ?re not going to "shorten" ranges...the only way t? go ?s to ext?nd t?em. It h?s ?lways be?n this way, and always will be this way. It in no way makes dating through the ?se of fossils invalid.
Does it make "it easier for the G?nesis Flood to expla?n an increasingly-random fossil reco?d" as the author claims? Y?s, if it were "increasingly random," but it is not. Bec?use you increase the range of ?n organism's lifespan ?n earth does not pr?ve more "randomization." He states furth?r down, when expressing questions from evolutionists, "why ? layer of ?ock containing tril?bites is never found t? contain dinosaurs," and vice-versa. Great point...if we are to ?uddenly f?nd a t?ilobite in ? dinosau? layer...great, they lived longer than expected. If ?e find a tril?bite w?th ? human fo?sil, then great. It ha? no implications fo? yo?ng or old earth creationism.
The auth?r i? trying to establish ?redible pro?f f?r ? com?letely random fossil record. A co?pletely random fossil r?cord should have been cr?ated from th? Flood, if you follow the model pr?posed b? young-earth scientists. What ?s meant b? "random?" If the fossil record w?s random, we should have humans, and dinosa?rs, and tr?lobites all together...but we don't. In fa?t, l?ok at the Grand Canyon...you would expect m?ny fossils in the rocks at the bottom, but start?ng from the bottom, you h?ve to go thousands of feet ?p the rock strata before you even g?t to ?ny vertebrate fossils. Wh? are t?ey not lower down? By the flood ?odel, ?hile thes? thousands of feet ?f strata wer? laid down, all the vertebrates w?re busy "treading water" for months, until they finally died and san?? Not only ?s this not possible, it ?s not supported in t?e fossil re?ord. The fossil ?ecord shows increasingly co?plex organisms, as you go upward (?r, younger) in the geologic column, which i? exactly what you would expect in ?n old earth.
Boundary Fossils
Many points on the geologic ti?e scale we?e made wit? th? use ?f boundary fossils. This is a means of dating a rock, albeit n?t precisely, by using t?e ?ange that an organism existed as ? boundary. In other words, f?r inst?nce, the Cr?taceous per?od ended 65 m?llion years ago. You could use ? dinosaur fossil in a rock layer, and ?tate with certainty that the ro?k ?s older than 65 million years.
Yes, boundary fossils are used to cr?ate imaginary timelines, so that earth history can b? better understood. Does finding ? boundary fos?il o?tside their p?eviously-believed range invalidate th? timeline...no, it just increases th?t organism'? life range. So what if new ti?elines a?e made. That's just science reacting to ? change ?f the "evidence" in the rock record. Is it a perfect system? No. Is ?t ? reliable method t?at con?iders all the e?idence fairly, and r?aches a logi?al, reliable conclusion? Yes.
What's So Hard to Understand?
That's what we ?all science...something famili?r to a scienti?t, but for some unknown reason it i? ? ha?d concept t? gr?sp for a young-earth scientist. When new discoveries ?re made, the?ries change, textbooks re-w?itten, research articles publ?shed. It is ? gre?t process.
Why do yo?ng-earth ?cientists like t? disavow sc?entific methods? Mud-slinging, mis-statements, and controv?rsies ove? ages which are taken ?ut of conte?t ar? all t?e we?pons t?at a y?ung-earth scientist ha? left, becau?e the? can't prove a young earth from science.
The a?thor claims, "Creationists, including myself, ha?e provided a ?ariety of alternative explan?tions f?r fossil suc?ession." Have they been accepted by th? scientifi? community...NO, ?ecause there are no fa?ts to bac? th?m ?p from th? geolog?c record. They are only accepted within the small commun?ty ?f young-earth scientists, and their devoted followers. Th?y say the world scoffs at them, b?cause the Bible sa?s they ?ill be persec?ted for ?olding to thei? faith...no, that's n?t true. T?e world scoffs be?ause the? h?ld to an unprovable, unbelie?able theory ?ased on an inaccurate interpretation of t?e B?ble and science.
The God of th? Bible is real, ?nd yes, the earth is old. God's creation testifies to this. The Bible says, "speak to the earth, and it will t?ach thee" (Job 12:8). Let’s ?ll l?sten to wh?t the earth ha? to say.
Conclusion
The author ?ssumes that t?e fossil record ?s becoming more random, and will eventually prove the flood. Unfortunately for h?m, thi? ?s far from the tr?th. Randomn?ss will never be proved. In f?ct, the rock record ha? alr?ady disp?oved it.
Footnote 1: "T?e Fos?il Record: B?coming Mo?e Rando? All the Time" (answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v14n1_fossil-rec.asp)
About the Author:
Greg Neyman is the founder of the ?ebsite ministry Answers In Creat?on. T?e original location ?f this article is here.
| Next > |
|---|