Sunday, February 12, 2006

Fossils

I have a few problems with the Evolutionist's interpretation of fossils.

Fossils can form quickly - in fact, they must form quickly or the subject will decompose before it can be fossilized. The only exceptions are creatures that leave a shell that does not decompose - in which case, only this shell is fossilized.

If adjacent strata are separated by millions (or thousands) of years, how do you explain polystrate fossils? Did the upper portions remain undisturbed until the upper strata were deposited?

There are fossilized footprints (and other surface features) between stratum. I've seen this used as an argument for both the Old-Earth and Young-Earth theories. As far as a Young-Earth view (which I agree with), the strata weren't necessarily laid down all at the exact same time - days, months, years, decades, etc. could have passed between their formations. It seems logical that if footprints and other surface features were left in one stratum, then that stratum was still soft when the next was laid down.

Evolutionists are constantly amazed by the discovery of "Living Fossils" - the Coelecanth, the Ginko, Sharks, Crocodiles, etc - whose fossils are supposedly millions of years old. They also like to state that no modern creature is more or less evolved than another - they have been evolving at the same rate - today's crocodiles are more evolved versions of the ancient fossilized crocs. However, by all observations, the living fossils are identical to the ancient fossils.

1 Comments:

Blogger John said...

"Fossils can form quickly - in fact, they must form quickly or the subject will decompose before it can be fossilized."

Ever see a corpse dredged out of a swamp, well preserved after 2 thousand years? Lindow Man

"They also like to state that no modern creature is more or less evolved than another - they have been evolving at the same rate - today's crocodiles are more evolved versions of the ancient fossilized crocs."

"Evolutionists are constantly amazed by the discovery of "Living Fossils" - the Coelecanth, the Ginko, Sharks, Crocodiles, etc "

The only one of those that caused any amazement (as far as I know) was Coelacanth. And that was only because it was believed to be extinct. Anyway, how do you think "living fossils" pose any problem for the Theory of Evolution?

The Theory of Evolution says that the more successful form will survive in the long run. Crocodiles (and sharks) are very successful in their niches. Nothing better has come along. That they haven't changed significantly for millions of years doesn't mean they have stopped evolving, it just means that the "old" form outsurvives any "new" forms. Think of evolution as constant testing. Crocs and sharks keep passing, just the way they are.

It seems I just can't shut up.

1:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home