Today’s Q&A is about the fossil record. An alert reader, replying to my previous writings and video content, said the following:
As to the fossil record, if we actually find an animal on the wrong rock layers then that would be huge news to scientists all over the world. So if this has happened at least once then can you provide an example of this? Because scientists have pretty much sequenced the entire ape-to-human evolutionary line from our ancestor’s fossils and I’m pretty sure the same can be said for whales but don’t quote me on that. As for the definition of evolution: “Changes in the gene pool over time through mutations and natural selection as to cause speciation”. Those are my words based on my understanding of evolution btw.
Right off the bat, you are absolutely correct. Finding animals in the “wrong” rock layers WOULD be news to scientists all over the world! But that isn’t because it hasn’t happened hundreds of times. It’s because, as I explained in the article about Deep Time dating methods recently, there are checks to make sure such information never sees the light of day (See CreatorGate video below for a recent example). Try to publish in a secular magazine about fossils which fly in the face of evolution, and you may never work again. The result is, not a lot of people get to read about those discoveries. Sometimes the stories leak, but even when they prove conclusively that the evolutionary story is wrong (Such as Mary Schweitzer’s highly publicized and equally controversial- discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bone) it is quickly dismissed, swept away, or hidden under a faith blanket of “Someday we will discover how this MIRACULOUS event occurred without violating the tenets of atheism or Evolution.” I don’t mean to sound cynical, but this happens all of the time. When you know what I know, cynicism and realism tend to blend into a fruit-smoothy of head smacking disbelief.
You ask for examples of fossils which are in the wrong place? Sure thing. Quite a few of these are featured in this video with inks in the description: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k0B80oJlQw
Tiktaalik was supposed to be the FIRST animal with legs, but fossilized footprints show up in rocks dated hundred million years earlier. (Watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeTEfg4m3pQ Starting about 11 min in)
Human and Dinosaur footprints are found in the same rock, with them even stepping in each other’s footprints. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXDBX99qePA
Fossil pollen shows up before those plants were supposed to have evolved. http://www.icr.org/article/pollen-fossils-warp-evolutionary-time/
Dino eating mammals have been found with dino in their bellies, when evolution tells us only tiny squirrels or smaller should have existed. http://www.livescience.com/3794-dinosaur-fossil-mammal-stomach.html
https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/when-did-dinosaurs-live/dino-dinner-hard-to-swallow/
There is a fossil of a trilobite in a footprint, and the foot was wearing a sandal- even though the trilobites are supposed to have gone extinct hundreds of millions of years before. http://www.footprintsinstone.com/the-footprints/meister-print/
http://www.creationevidence.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29
Marine invertebrates are found EVERYWHERE, including at the top of Mt Everest. That shows global flood but NOT evolution.
Modern birds show up in the fossils in rock layers dated millions of years before the dinosaurs were supposed to have evolved into birds. http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/trivia/birds/
http://creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaurs
Human artifacts made of brass found in coal- coal which was supposed to have formed millions of years before the first humans evolved. http://www.genesispark.com/essays/update-on-the-mysterious-bell-found-in-coal/
http://www.icr.org/article/possible-human-artifact-found-coal/
In short, this kind of thing happens ALL of the time. What ought to annoy you is the way in which the geological record is created in the first place. If you’re anything like me, you got the idea (from textbooks and television) that Darwin built the theory of evolution in part on the evidence from the fossil record which, as you dig down, shows evolution going back in time. The other side of that coin is, the geological column which you find in your textbooks indicates that, the further down you go, the further back in time, meaning, if you dig down far enough anywhere, you will find the Jurassic period and have dinosaurs of your own! And if you keep on digging, you find trilobites! But all of this is a horrible, bold faced lie.
I don’t say that merely because I reject evolution. I say it merely because these two pieces of information which I thought I knew and which I was sure science had proven are not facts asserted by science. First, the fossil record was not evidence for evolution. Darwin’s only real comment on the fossil record is regretting that it did NOT show evolution. Specifically, he laments the fact that fossils show NO intermediate forms, meaning, the stages between fully formed animal kinds. He hoped that someday in the future, the fossil record would eventually show the transitions (i.e. missing links) which he knew ought to be there, were his theory true. For a collection of scientists admitting that the missing links are STILL missing, see the links below.
But don’t modern evolutionists know that the fossils support evolution? Don’t they use it as evidence for evolution? The textbook writers do. The actual paleantologists? Not so much. But again, don’t take my word for it:
“In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” Ridley, Mark, “Who doubts evolution?” “New Scientist”, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831
One of the ironies of the evolution-creation debate is that the creationists have accepted the mistaken notion that the fossil record shows a detailed and orderly progression and they have gone to great lengths to accommodate this “fact” in their Flood geology. David M. Raup, “Evolution and the Fossil Record”, Science, Vol. 213, No. 4505, 17 July 1981, p.289
Why don’t evolutionists use the fossil record as evidence in favor of evolution when it shows evolution so clearly? Because it doesn’t. In fact, the fossil record only exists in one place in the world: Textbooks. The order in which fossils are found in the ground is NOT a gradual progression from simple to complex. You don’t go back in time the deeper you go. The rocks are dated, not by the order in which they are found, but by the fossils they contain, and the evolutionary theory.
Here’s how it works. You dig into your backyard, hoping to find a dinosaur fossil. You find a horseshoe crab. Those guys evolved 500 million years ago, so this fossil is 500 million years old, and thus the rock layer is 500 million years old. Then you dig deeper and you find a hadrosaur! But those guys are only 70 million years old (meaning of course that the rock layer it was found in is 70 million years old). Doesn’t that mean this fossil is in the “wrong place”? Not according to evolutionists! Since he’s in a 70 million year old rock layer, he’s in the right place. We just need to accept the fact that, somehow, a 500 million year old rock layer got pushed up on top of a 70 million year old layer. How does that happen? We have no idea, but it MUST happen, because otherwise all of these rock layers will be in the wrong order.
So how do we date the fossils? We determine the age of the fossils by what rock layer they are found in. But didn’t I just say we determine what rock layer it is by the fossils it contains? Yes. Yes I did.
The fossils date the rocks, but then, the rocks date the fossils.
But then how do we determine the age of the rocks or the fossils to begin with? We look at the evolutionary theory to tell us how old things are. You may be wondering why I have failed to mention radiometric dating. This is because we don’t bother with that until we have the ages of the rocks and fossils figured out. But wait! Don’t we use radio methods to date the rocks and fossils? Well… no. First of all, fossils cannot be radio dated directly by any method other than C14 dating, but that can only be used on once living things which died LESS than 100,000 years ago, and we know that dinosaurs went extinct 65 MILLION years ago. Almost all other methods can only be used on volcanic rock, and most fossils are not found in volcanic rock. The rock layers are almost all sedimentary, meaning they are formed from sediment settling out in water- like we would find in, say, a global flood. Besides all of that, here is the key point: Radio dating methods are calibrated by using the dates provided by evolutionary theory.
WHAT THE WHAAAAAAT?
Yes, those dates provided by radio dating methods are determined to be correct or incorrect by comparing the date calculated by lab tests against the dates given by evolutionary theory. If the lab tests differ from the evolutionary dates, the lab date is tossed out. But once again, don’t take my word for it:
“In conventional interpretation of KAr age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.” A. HAYATSU, Dept. of Geophysics, U. of Western Ontario, Canadian Journal Of Earth Science, 16:974.
“In general, dates in the ‘correct ball park’ are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained.” R. L. MAUGER, E. Carolina U., DISSENTERS EJECTED, Contributions To Geology, Vol.15 (1): 17
So let me sum up: Evolution tells us WHEN different species evolved and when they went extinct. Thus, evolution tells us how old the fossils are. The fossils of those species tell us how old the rock layers are. Once we know how old a rock layer is, we can use that to date the fossils. If there is volcanic rock nearby, we can date it with radio dating methods to get confirmation of the ages determined by the rocks and the fossils, and we know the lab results are correct by comparing them to the evolutionary dates we got from evolution in the first place. And then, we use all of this as evidence for evolution. Which means, when you get right down to it, Evolution is used as evidence for evolution. Any data we find is forced to fit into the evolutionary model by first assuming evolution to be true, and if any data doesn’t fit, we explain it away or toss it out.
It sounds like I am making this stuff up, but I am not.
Here’s what you need to realize about this: They have created a system where by it is almost impossible for the evidence to disrupt the theory. If the rocks are not in the right order (and literally 99% of the time, they are not) they invent some geological upheaval which says the rocks were laid down in the right evolutionary order, but then somehow they got flipped over. Or if layers are missing so that, such as in the grand canyon, 95% of the deep time ages and epochs are missing, they label it a “great unconformity” and assume that it HAD been there, but has eroded away over time. And the rocks are not dated according to where they are in relationship to each other, but merely by what fossils they find in the rock layers. And the age of the fossils is determined by evolutionary theory, BUT if a rock contains fossils from different ages, they will claim one fossil needs to be explained away, maybe by saying the animal (or sometimes human) fell into a crevasse, which then closed up and fossilized them. The test proposed is, if we ever found a pre-Cambrian rabbit, it would prove evolution false. But if you find a rabbit fossil, then CLEARLY that rock layer is NOT pre-Cambrian, no matter how deep you have to dig to find it. It’s the way the defense attorney in a trial says an eye witness is unreliable because they claimed to have seen the defendant at the scene of the crime.
So it’s impossible to radio date dinosaurs directly. Or is it? Remember Carbon 14 dating? Dinosaurs should be 64.9 Million years too old to date with that method, but as of a few years ago, 25 dinosaur fossils were shown to have C14 in them, meaning they were YOUNGER than 100,000 years. And Coal. And Diamonds. In fact, as C14 detection has become more and more sensitive, it has become almost impossible to find any fossil plant or animal without C14 in it, which means all of these things which evolution says are MILLIONS of years old CANNOT be a tenth of ONE million years old. What’s worse, I know of at least three species of dinosaur which have been found to have soft tissue in them, and un-fossilized dinosaur skin has been found. 65 MILLION years old? No Chemical Way.
For a realistic look at how fossils in the wrong place are dealt with, watch this: https://youtu.be/lTWZJBXAZJA?t=10m21s
Onto the next point: scientists have pretty much sequenced the entire ape-to-human evolutionary line from our ancestor’s fossils and I’m pretty sure the same can be said for whales…
If you have any textbook teaching evolution, then the ape to human or the land animal to whale sequences will be proudly displayed as settled evolutionary fact. What those charts do not show you is the actual evidence, meaning the fossils. What you get are the artists reproductions of what the animal, or what the skeletons MAY have looked like.
The entire collection of ape to human fossils could ALL be stored in a box smaller than a coffin. Most are fragments. One was a dolphin. HubbaWHAAAA? Check it out:
A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib, …He [Dr. T. White] puts the incident on par with two other embarrassing [sic] faux pas by fossil hunters: Hesperopithecus, the fossil pig’s tooth that was cited as evidence of very early man in North America, and Eoanthropus or ‘Piltdown Man,’ the jaw of an orangutan and the skull of a modern human that were claimed to be the ‘earliest Englishman’.
“The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.’”
Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson “Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin’s rib”, in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199
What those charts also don’t give you are updates on the discoveries. Every single proposed human ancestor has been determined by the evolutionists in the field to be either FULLY HUMAN, or merely another primate. One was a lemur. For a detailed look at that- and a great examination of the propaganda and subtle lies that get used to sell this stuff, check out Carl Kerby’s talk “Evolution: Is that all you got?” https://youtu.be/zbWDER83NwE
And also very much worth a watch is Dr Charles Jackson:Chimps, Gorillas, Humans and Homo naledi
https://youtu.be/SqBsEC5I0Pk
In short, the human to ape evolution story is a marketing piece which is a lie that paleontologists do not believe, but that the media keeps selling. If you think it’s harsh to call it a lie, then take a look at the media’s FAVORITE pre-human ancestor- Lucy- being “adjusted” with power tools to fit the theory, because the evidence as discovered didn’t serve the evolutionary story. You need to see this to believe it: https://youtu.be/p6RfIEVO6YQ
What about whales? Once again, you can hear it right from the evolutionists mouth. The fossils do not support the story. There are artists reconstructions based on the theory, but the evidence, as you will see admitted by the guy responsible for proposing that land animal to whale chart that shows up in your textbooks, does not support it. He knows its wrong, but the textbooks and museums don’t care about the evidence when they have faith and some cartoons to sell their story. Once again, don’t take my word for it.
Whale Evolution vs fossil evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zio1ttlDjlM
The Fossils: they DO NOT support evolution. People who study them admit this. What the fossils show are two things which support the creation account but which fly in the face of evolution. Once again, don’t take it from me. Let’s hear from a true believer of Darwinian evolution:
“Paleontologists have paid an enormous price for Darwin’s argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we almost never see the very process we profess to study. …The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change I usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’” Gould, Stephen J. The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182
Fossils don’t show evolution. They show fully formed, created kinds appearing fully formed and distinct, and NOT changing, even if you accept the millions of years.
Finally, what is evolution? My astute reader says “As for the definition of evolution: “Changes in the gene pool over time through mutations and natural selection as to cause speciation”. Those are my words based on my understanding of evolution btw.”
A better attempt than most, but instead of going into it here, I will suggest my series on defining evolution which begins here:
https://abitoforange.com/2016/03/01/defining-evolution-1-the-fight-almost-starts/
https://youtu.be/LDoETfGFRx8?list=PL9H1r9fw21g5wFlvJzY2imlSDVYrffOnu
I go into detail about why most definitions fail, and why my definition is a better explaination of what Darwin was trying to say. If you have questions on any of that, please let me know. To sum up why yours needs work: CHANGES– this can mean extinctions. This can mean a sighted species going blind. This can mean cancer. In order to mean what Darwin meant, you need to be able to explain the Darwinain Tree of life, and most changes will not do the job. Also, Natural Selection REMOVES variation over time, it does not ADD it, which means it is actually the opposite of what evolution needs to be. As you’ll see in my series, Darwin figured this out and wrote about it himself.
In short, when you begin to put all of the pieces together, you will see that you have been lied to. The evolutionary story is a lie, the evidence is fabricated, altered or tossed out to suit the theory. Evolution is not supported by science, it is supported by itself and only itself. It exists only to give an imaginary intellectual defense of atheism. Like the myth of deep time, it was not DISCOVERED by scientists, it was INVENTED by atheists who acknowledged that they intended to undermine Genesis and it is NOT supported by the actual evidence, it is supported by blind faith and imagination. If you look at the fossils without the presumption of Evolution, you would NEVER see evolution in the rocks. What you see is the evidence of a global catastrophe. The fossil record is exactly what you would expect to find if the Genesis account of creation and the flood were real history.
I hope this helps. As always, I welcome your questions. For more information on related topics, check out the links below, and remember, #JesusLovesYou.
Here are a few articles with more info:
http://creation.com/fossils-out-of-order
http://creation.com/fossils-wrong-place
Read: https://abitoforange.com/2016/04/21/defining-evolution-16-fossils/
Watch Fabulous Fossil Fail: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yo_uLKR85ak
https://creationsoapbox.wordpress.com/2015/09/28/the-flood-4-genesis-rocks/
Ian Juby: Fossil record Busted! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTWZJBXAZJA
Creatorgate! Anti-Creation Bigotry overshadows science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JJTiPf_ChE
Consensus Rant from Ian Juby: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ESmAg68UHQ
QUOTE MINES! More secular scientists accidentally telling you the truth.
A Bit of Orange 