Creationist explanation for the fossil record?
May 21, 2012 at 6:41 pm
(This post was last modified: May 21, 2012 at 6:42 pm by libalchris.)
This is aimed mostly at creationists. How do you explain the order of the fossil record? That is, in the creationist view, why do we find only primitive creatures lower in the geological column, never any modern creatures.
I went to an old textbook I had from grade-school (I went to a private Christian school with its own creationist textbook) and they had the only explanation I have ever seen:
I hope everybody understands why that is such a ridiculous proposition. The fact with the geological record is that crossovers that would destroy the theory of evolution simply never occur. We have NEVER found a mammal in or before the Jurassic period. We do, however, find fossils of simpler animals in recent fossil record, those that shouldn't have been able to "escape the rising waters of the flood" in recent geological periods. They're just different from earlier periods. So this explanation obviously fails. Besides that, radiometric dating is completely consistent with evolution and common descent. The fossils give the exact radiometric dates they should.
So my question is: is there another explanation creationists have explaining the complex order of fossils in the fossil record? Because this is extremely compelling evidence for evolution, and it seems to be the one thing creationists haven't really touched.
(Side note, another huge problem with the other explanation is the fact that there is zero evidence for a world wide flood, but I didn't want to start an argument over that)
I went to an old textbook I had from grade-school (I went to a private Christian school with its own creationist textbook) and they had the only explanation I have ever seen:
Quote:Eras, periods, and epochs are all related to a sequence of time. This fits well with naturalistic evolution, but not with special creation. As a result, most creation scientists interpret these terms as describing the sequence in which the fossils would have been buried by the flood and later geologic activity. For example, snails and similar animals would have been buried lower in the geologic column than animals, such as mammals, that could have escaped the rising waters of the flood by moving to higher ground
I hope everybody understands why that is such a ridiculous proposition. The fact with the geological record is that crossovers that would destroy the theory of evolution simply never occur. We have NEVER found a mammal in or before the Jurassic period. We do, however, find fossils of simpler animals in recent fossil record, those that shouldn't have been able to "escape the rising waters of the flood" in recent geological periods. They're just different from earlier periods. So this explanation obviously fails. Besides that, radiometric dating is completely consistent with evolution and common descent. The fossils give the exact radiometric dates they should.
So my question is: is there another explanation creationists have explaining the complex order of fossils in the fossil record? Because this is extremely compelling evidence for evolution, and it seems to be the one thing creationists haven't really touched.
(Side note, another huge problem with the other explanation is the fact that there is zero evidence for a world wide flood, but I didn't want to start an argument over that)
