If evolution is false, how do you reconcile this?

Question

Scientists have dug up the remains of animals that lived 75 million years ago.

They have yet to find remains of people from that period.

People exist now.

At what point were we "created" in the last ten thousand years?

I'm not trying to make anyone feel stupid, but I just want to know how creationists deal with each of these facts. Do you dispute some of these as "facts", and if so which ones and why?

Please keep the bibles closed on this one, folks.

Thanks!

Answer 1

The idea with Creationism is to mold and bend the evidence to suit the 6000 years since Genesis.
The arguments against your points are this:

The fossil record is not in dispute, but they question the validity of the techniques used in dating them. Fossils that seem to be embedded within very old rock strata may have got there during the Flood of Noah, with the sediment solidifying within a few thousand years. Dinosaurs and humans must have co-existed, because, to deny their co-existence, would be to deny that the Earth is 6000 years old, they died during the great Flood, Noah did not bring any dinosaurs onto the Ark, not even small ones, despite it saying that he brought some of each animal. Perhaps they were considered sinful.

They claim that old bones of early hominids are either of modern apes, or, of humans suffering from arthritis.
They will then give you a link to sites which re-iterate more circular arguments with belief being offered as proof.

Even the Catholic Church has accepted evolution - without collapsing.
Some creationists just don't get it yet.

.

Answer 2

Hi 4LC--

I am myself a scientist, and sometimes find scientific knowledge at odds with my faith. As an example, carbon dating is a method that is quite mainstream when studying fossils and such. While this process is certainly reliable, it is not infallible; I've had the privilege of talking to a famous biochemist at a scientific meeting in 1997 whose lab is one of the top ones in the world for carbon dating, and he told me that they occasionally get strange results: the shell of a living tortoise carbon dated to 12,000 years (obviously impossible), the bark of a live redwood tree carbon dated to 19,000 years, and the list goes on. While I am a firm believer in evolution, I don't have an explanation for this disparity (and neither did the biochemist in question, at least not at that particular time).

Something else I came across a few years ago (but for the life of me, I can't find it anywhere) was an illustration of an ancient giant pine tree fossil found several hundred feet underground. In and of itself, this is nothing unusual; however, the same illustration shows the tree fossil was found in a diagonal slant that traversed three distinct archeological soil layers/periods/eras, each separated by thousands of years (and this was not in a creationism propaganda brochure, but in a reputed scientific publication; I will keep searching for it and send it along to you when/if I eventually find it). Further, carbon dating of the fossil revealed a constant age at different sampling areas in all of the different strata! I'm sure critics can explain away the dubious carbon dating stuff by classifying it as experimental error, etc., but the position of the fossil through the different ground strata is quite a bit harder to dismiss.

Something else to ponder: if modern man is descended from the primate, why are there still primates alive today? How come they've remain virtually unchanged for millions of years while we have evolved beyond the primate? As you mention, the fossils of some animals millions of years old have and are being discovered all the time, and some of these still exist today, virtually unchanged. Crocodiles, alligators, snakes, several other reptilians, but to mention a few. How come they didn't evolve, and still exist today?

Can we possibly get an expert on evolution involved here to answer some of these questions? lol

Answer 3

I won't go into the age dispute, but the lack of human fossils could be explained by a paucity of humans. In the same way that we suspect that only about 1% of all insect species are known. We just don't know all there is. Perhaps a contemporary human fossil will be found someday. Perhaps not.
The conditions that lead to fossilization are pretty rare. Humans tend to move the bodies of their dead, unlike animals, which may lay where they have fallen and fossilize.

Answer 4

The original idea of evolution was a hoax cooked up by Darwin himself. The original idea holds no water what so ever. But like any evil church, over the years the truth has been buried and the craftiness of men has been used to blind the dumb.
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php

Answer 5

The devil made it that way to test us.

We still don't know how life sprung up 3.5 billion years ago. That uncertainty must mean that God created man in his present form. If it happened any other way, we would know.

There are gaps is certain fossil records therefore evolution is false.

No other animal has a soul.

Are you calling Christ a monkey?

I have heard at least a hundred more.

Answer 6

I actually believe in evolution, but here are two commonly held theories that I have heard from creationists: God guided evolution, so it did not happen naturally and god placed humans on the earth after the situation was perfect for them.

Answer 7

There are many variables that can interfere with carbon dating procedures. Therefore, dating very old objects can be highly inaccurate in some situations.

BTW -- I just love how you ask for opinions from people who believe in creationism; however, most of the people answering here claim to believe in evolution, and insist on posting negative votes for opinions that don't agree with theirs.

Answer 8

if evolution is real, then why havn't whales developed gills yet?

why didn't the dodo develop wings to fly and lay eggs in the trees so they wouldn't go extinct?

Answer 9

Evolution is a fact. There is no debate.....