Creationist's Problem: Fossil Layers and Humans

quote:

---

I don't really care if the Earth is billions or just thousands of years old, but I can't see how anyone could say that there is perfect proof that the Earth is indeed that old. Carbon dating is not conclusive enough to prove that without the shadow of a doubt.

---

The bible isn't perfect proof either, since it was written by fallible men. The best evidence (not 100% proof) is what we see in the earth itself. The earth is telling us how old it is, not scientists with an anti-religious agenda. BTW, carbon dating is only used to date organic matter of terrestrial origin that is younger than about 50,000 years old. Other isotopes with longer half-lives are used to date rocks.

quote:

---

You believe that the different layers of Rock Strata represent layers of time. That's what you believe I respect that. I believe that they do not reprsent only layers of time, but that a LOT of it was laid down by the flood in Genesis.

---

Look at the opening post in this thread. If a global flood created those layers then why don't we find human artifacts in layers below dinosaurs? Why don't we find human remains below dinosaurs? If this were a violent, catastrophic flood there should be many inconsistencies, such as hominid fossils that are older than 65 million years old.

quote:

---

Homeschooled kids are NOT dumb, even if their reason to homeschool IS to get away from other religious peer pressure (evolution and humanitarianism.) So try to think a little more carefully before discriminating against homeschooled kids.

---

Hey, I wholly agree that homeschooled kids are not dumb. However, they may be ignorant of certain areas of knowledge as is supported by the scientifically ignorant statements made by numerous creationist homeschooled kids here at this forum.Learning what evolution says is not the same as believing evolution is true. Before someone denies the validity of christianity, wouldn't you think it fair that they first learn what christianity is? Before someone denies that the Holocaust happened, don't you think it fair that they should look at the evidence? Why is it any different for evolution? How can you, as a creationist, overturn one of the most strongly supported theories in science if you don't even understand what it is based on? If someone is going to be a life long creationist, don't you think they have the obligation to learn what evolution is based on and what it says?And so what if humanism is pervasive in high schools (although I really doubt that it is). If your faith is so weak that it is swayed by your peers then it isn't a faith worth having to begin with. Wasn't it Paul that said "Be in the World, but not of the World"? How are you going to bring people to Christ if you go out of your way to avoid them?

quote:

---

Okay, sorry about that. I have a question for all of you. What is your "concrete" evidence for evolution anyway? All you guys ever say is, "You're dumb because you're a Creationist." What is so dumb about believing that God created the world, which is too complex to come about by chance anyway? Ok just thought I'd throw that out there!

---

No offense taken, and I hope you feel the same way. Never take my attacks on scientific issues personally. I know many creationists and we get along just fine (same could be said about my Republican friends as well).To get back on topic, there is no single piece of evidence that I would call "concrete". It is the mountains of separate evidence that points to one conclusion, that life changed over millions of years resulting in the biodiversity we see today. That much is as close to fact as science gets. The "theory" part is how that change came about, the mechanisms that caused changes in morphology and physiology. This theory is summed up in the Modern Synthesis which relies heavily on ecology and molecular biology.For a start, the topic of this thread is a great place to start. The position of fossils is one of those pieces of evidence that points to evolution. More specifically, if humans have been around since the dawn of the Earth (or the beginning of creation) why don't we find human fossils and human artifacts in every sediment layer? Why don't we find human fossils next to dinosaurs, archaeopteryx, or other ancient fossils. Why can't we find a anatomically modern fossil that dates older than 150,000 years, even if radiometric dating is untrustworthy. This is something that creationism can't answer, but the theory of evolution explains completely.The position of any fossil is a huge problem for creationism but supports evolution at every step. The problem is that the order of fossils in the ground is echoed in the DNA of living species. In other words, if two species share a recent common ancestor according to the fossil record then their DNA is very similar. If a global flood sorted these fossils, then it didn't do so by ecological niches, density, or any other characteristic besides DNA. If a global flood sorted these fossils, then it sorted the fossils by the DNA of those organisms. Call me crazy, but I don't think raging waters are able to sort organisms by their DNA content.How does creationism explain the position of fossils in the fossil record? What evidence supports the claim that a global flood was able to sort fossils by their DNA?