What is the typical creationist response for the fossils?

Answer 1

they don't exist -or satan planted them there to fool us

Answer 2

Fossils both, give credence and support for evidence for a Creator. For example, the fossil record has divisions called phyla. The phyla from the Cambrian period called by Paleontologists as the "Biological Big Bang", shows a sudden appearance of most of the animal phyla that are still alive today. This occurred, a little more than 540 million years ago, as well as, some [animal phyla] which are now, extinct. Prior to the Cambrian phyla there were SOME jellyfish, worms and sponges - with absolutely NO evidence to support Darwin's theory of a long history of gradual divergence. Then, at the beginning of the Cambrian - BANG ... you can see representatives of the arthropods, modern representatives of which are insects, crabs, and the like; echinoderms, which include vertebrae and so forth. Mammals came later; BUT the chordates - the major group to which they [mammals] belong, were right there, at the BEGINNING of the CAMBRIAN !!! During the course of the last 150 years, Darwin's theory of the Tree of Life runs contrary to the scientific fossil record. This is because scientists [paleontologists] call this Cambrian fossil record event, the most spectacular phenomenon of the fossil record !!! True science and True Christianity go hand in hand !!!

Answer 3

Great Flood as told in Genesis, and the fact that it doesn't not take that long for a fossil to form.

In one of the Oil Fields in Texas, geologist found a cowboy boot with a fossilized leg still in it.

HMMM. Go figure

Answer 4

It all depends upon what conclusion someone is trying to come to with fossil evidence. Are they trying to use fossils to claim that the earth is over the 6,000 or so years that the Bible seems to indicate that it has existed?

In that case the Creationist would question the presuppositions brought to the dating methods used to guess at how old a particular fossil is. If the method being used is the "soil layers" method then a Creationist can point out that this method presumes that all of the soil layers were deposited under normal conditions and doesn't allow for catastrophic formations during a world wide flood.

If the dating method being used is the radioisotopic method a Creationist would point out that this method has some controversial elements in it that make the results obtained from it uncertain. For instance when this method was used on diamonds it came up with guesstimates of hundreds of millions or over a billion years as the age of a diamond. However when the same diamonds are dated by looking at the residual helium in them which should be zero after 10,000 years they can be dated at around 6,000 years give or take 2,000 years.

If fossils are being used to try to prove that one species of animal evolved into a completely different species then a Creationist would point out the various errors that have been discovered when people look at fossils seeking to find proof of evolution instead of studying them only to gather facts that we can be certain of. Here are some examples of the Creationist response to fossils used in this manner.

http://www.allaboutgod.com/cgi-bin/search.cgi?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=fossils

Fossil Evidence for Evolution – Transitional Fossils
The second line of fossil evidence for evolution concerns transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils which are thought to document the evolutionary change, or transition, of one species into another. The orohippus, mesohippus, miohippus, merychippus, and pleshippus are all thought to be transitional fossils, documenting the evolution of the hyracotherium into the modern horse.

The hyracotherium was a small fox-sized four-toed creature, similar to the modern day hyrax. The orohippus had four toes on its front two legs and three on its back, as if it were transitioning from a four-toed to a three-toed creature. The significantly larger mesohippus had three toes all the way around. The mesohippus was followed by the slightly larger miohippus which was followed by the merychippus. Two of the merychippus’ three toes were smaller than those of the mesohippus and the miohippus, as if it were transitioning to a single-toe. The merychippus was followed by the slightly larger single-toed pleshippus which was finally succeeded by the equus (the modern day horse). The equus has two splint bones which appear to be all that remains of the merychippus’ smaller two toes. And so we see a progression from a smaller four-toed creature to a larger single-toed creature with slight structural progression throughout, including the elongation of faces and change in tooth shape.

This second line of fossil evidence for evolution is no less controversial than the first. For example, consider the ostensive evolution of the horse as described above, undoubtedly the single most popular and widely known sequence of transitional fossils. Critics point out that the fossils used to create the hyracotherium-to-horse sequence are found on opposite sides of the planet, oceans apart. This geographical discontinuity is an obstacle for advocates of the sequence. Those fossils which actually do appear on the same side of the ocean cause some difficulties as well. A species of three-toed horses were found together with a species of single-toed horses in the same rock formation in Nebraska, indicating that they lived side-by-side. As for the fossils’ progressive increase in size, this is a mute point. Modern horses vary greatly in size, from small dog-sized miniatures to massive Belgians, Clydesdales, and Percherons.

And so the debate rages on. Darwinists interpret geological and biological data in a manner consistent with their theory. Critics dispute these interpretations, citing incongruities.

Answer 5

Well, if you believe in God who spoke everything into existence, who is beyond the human's ability to fully comprehend (can you explain the human genome... we can't even fully map it), then why would you assume that He did/could NOT create fossils in the ground when He created the earth?

Answer 6

"god talks about dinosaurs in the bible"
"the Earth is really only 6000 years old and God put the bones there to test our faith"
"Man lived here along with the dinosaurs, but since our bones are so much smaller, they deteriorated more quickly and we can't find any since they are so old"

...give me a break, all garbage responses, yet I have honestly seen each of these used.

There is NO possible way that life HUMAN life started on Earth the way it is described in the story of creation, ZERO % chance.

Answer 7

During the flood in Noah's generation there was a lot of sulphur in the water that aged the dead animals bones at a much faster rate.

Answer 8

the FSM placed fossils in order to make the world look older than it is and test our faith.

Answer 9

That fossils are remains of dead things. Any more questions?

Answer 10

fossils are fossils, there is no where in the bible that says animals cannot become extinct.

Answer 11

First i would refer you to the website: DrDino.com
Fossils dont prove age or millenia of age. Then i would insist you read the book forbidden archeology. just for the sake of what kind of censorship the HIGHER Educated and learned scholars dont want you to know about.