How is it that creationists can claim that mankind was created roughly the same time as all other species?

Question

The oldest known evidence of homo-sapiens is about 200, 000 years old whilst the oldest fossils are about several billion years old. We know the age is correct because we understand nuclear physics and radio metric dating and if our understanding is not correct, then our nuclear power stations would not work. And if you say that a day to us is not the same as a day to God, so that means Gods days are somewhere in the order of billions of years of our time?

Answer 1

I wonder why we don't find cow skeletons or elephant and giraffe skeletons in the same geologic strata as dinosaur skeletons?? Hundreds of thousands of dinosaur bones, without a single mammalian bone mixed in! Then of course there is that sad old hoax that claimed human footprints and dinosaur footprints side by side :-) Curiously though, in older strata there weren't any dinosaurs either! No vertebrates at all, just invertebrates. Hmmmmmm, wonder why?

Answer 2

Radio metric dating is not as foolproof as you have been led to believe. In all dating methods the initial amount is an assumption, the estimate of contamination is an assumption, and the overall rate is an assumption. The only things which can be known for sure are the present amount and the present rate.

There is a detailed explantion of the flaws in the process cross referenced to relevant journals and publications at:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_dating.asp

There are actually very few dating methods which seem to indicate that the earth is extremely old. On the other hand there are many dating methods which indicate that the earth is much younger.

Claims and rebuttals for other dating methods can be found here:

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-oldagemethods.html

To Answer PaulCyp's question “Why don’t we find dinosaur and mammal fossils together?” the truth is, fossils themselves are very rare.

And, of all those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals) Furthermore, mammal fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a haystack.

The real question then, is not, “Why don’t we find dinosaur and mammal fossils together?,” but, “Where are all of the mammal fossils?”

The reason is not every living plant, animal, or human fossilizes after death. In fact, it is extremely rare for things once living to fossilize. Dead animals lying in a field or on the side of the road do not fossilize. In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried rapidly in just the right place.

Consider as an example all the bison that were slaughtered and left to rot on the prairies of the Old West. In those days, you could buy a seat on a train, pull up to a herd of bison, and keep shooting out of the window until you were either out of bullets or your barrel overheated. When everyone had enough, the train would move on, leaving the dead and dying animals behind. By 1885, millions of bison had been reduced to just 500 .

What happened to all of their remains? We do not see them on the prairies today. Why?

Because their bones and flesh were scavenged by worms, birds, insects, and other animals. The smallest portions were digested by bacteria, fungi, and enzymatic degradation until the buffalo remains were gone - there's nothing left to be buried and eventually fossilized. It would have required some sudden and catastrophic event to preserved those carcasses so they could be rapidly buried in just the right kind of sediment to make a fossil - and that is a very rare event.

A significant discovery, reported in the January 13, 2005 issue of Nature, has challenged everything evolutionists have ever maintained regarding the cohabitation of dinosaurs and mammals. Villagers digging in China’s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal. Not only is there now substantial proof of large mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but now we also have scientific evidence of a large mammal eating a dinosaur! Scientists discovered the fossil remains of two different mammals. One (Repenomamus giganticus) was 50% larger than mammals previously considered to be living alongside dinosaurs. The other, Repenomamus robustus, was fully intact—and had a dinosaur in its stomach

Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information?

No!

WE might one day find one, or we might not, the chance of finding any fossil is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, Dodos and humans) is even less likely so we have to be carefull what conclusions we draw from the absence of anything in the record.

Answer 3

Keep in mind that even if a scientific theory has been shown to present a fundamentally wrong model of reality, it can still be useful (similar to your statement about our "understanding" of nuclear physics and radiometric dating enabling us to run nuclear power stations). Einstein's view of the universe superceded Newton's, but Newton's laws got us to the moon and back. Einstein's gravitation theory can't cope with quantum effects, but theoreticians still depend on it. I would also point out the many proven examples of flawed dating using radiometric methods (which rest on major assumptions). I would be happy to cite a list of them with references if you want - just email me.

That said, the Bible is clear...earth is 6k years old.

Answer 4

Fossils are usually dated using preconceived ideas about the age of the earth. Depending on what layer the fossil is found changes the date of the fossil. The other method for testing is by carbon dating but it is apparently only capable of testing up to 50,000 years, so it can not support your claim of a billion year old fossil.

Answer 5

like so, God created things in their adult form. as such, things appear very old when they are actually very young. for example, it says God created man. He didn't create babies. God created the heavens. He didn't create the beginnings of the universe and let it "simmer" until finished. also,
if your dating methods use carbon, good luck with that. the life of carbon is, at max, 50k years so anything past that using carbon is not accurate (from what i have read).
many things work in science without actually getting it right. for example, Mr Ben used electricity without knowing everything correct about it first. :P

Answer 6

We dont neccessarly know, one day to god could be 1million years or even more or less. So they wouldnt be created at the same time.

Answer 7

If you know it so well then you would no the sun would have consumed the earth 10,000 years ago or less so the nuclear physicist are doing somethings right the rest is wrong.

Answer 8

Re-think your theory - Chernobyl.

Answer 9

...which is why they reject most dating methods.