Does creationism call fossils fake? Or does it say that they're not as old as they seem?

Question

Fossils of dinosaurs, homosapians, plants older than 6000 years old, ect.

I've heard people say that they appear older than they really are. And some people say that they're fake.

Answer 1

If you really want to know what we believe, then you will take the time to read this.

The catastrophic nature of Noah's Flood with 40 days of rain and “all the fountains of the great deep bursting open” (clearly pointing to tectonic rupturing of the earth’s surface) would have produced volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis and hurricanes, as well as massive erosion and mud slides.

And there is all kinds of evidence that extreme flooding causes layers of sediment like we find in the “geologic column.” We can see it in real life and reproduce it with flume experiments.

As Dr. Terry Mortenson (who has a Ph.D. in the history of geology) said, “Noah’s Flood would produce the kind of complex geological record we see today worldwide: thousands of feet of sediments containing billions of dead plants and animals, which were clearly deposited by water and rather quickly hardened into rock and fossils.”

Because fossilization usually requires large quantities of water, many scientists are starting to think that local flash floods caused them. Creationists of course believe they are better explained by Noah’s worldwide flood.

So what do we find? We find marine organisms in the lower layers and then vertebrates in the higher levels as you go up. Evolutionists say that shows the history of evolution. Creationists say that shows the organisms that could survive longer and were not buried till later in the flood (that’s why we find very few human fossils).

And as Scott Huse has said, “In the field every conceivable contradiction to the proposed ideal sequence of the geologic column is found.” They are constantly having to explain away things like:

-The Cambrian explosion (where we have the sudden appearance of all these diverse and fully formed animals in the fossil record, with no evolutionary ancestors).

-Or fossils too low or too high in the geologic column.

-Or polystrate fossils (fossils that extent through several layers of strata).

-Or sedimentary strata found in the wrong stratigraphic order.

-Or missing strata.

-Or thousands of feet of strata that is bent and folded without cracking (which must have happened while it was all still wet).

-Or strata that lacks any erosion features with smooth lines between the layers.

-Or strata that are supposed to be many millions of years apart that are inter-bedded.

-Or fossils of marine organisms found on high mountains, all over the earth.

-Or out-of-place human artifacts (Cremo and Thompson have done a thorough job of listing some out-of-place artifacts in their book, Forbidden Archeology).

-Or “living fossils” (animals and plants that supposedly lived hundreds of millions of years ago that forgot to evolve and look the same as they do today).

-Or Dinosaur soft tissue being found (as they did in March of 2005); how could soft tissue and cells remain so relatively fresh for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history?

Creationists believe that many and probably most of the fossils we find today were laid down in the flood. As Ken Ham has said, “If Noah’s flood really did occur, what would you expect to find? Billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth.” And guess what we find: billions of dead things, buried in rock layers, laid down by water, all over the earth. So, if the Flood is responsible for most of the rock layers and fossils, then they cannot be the record of millions of years of earth history.

So what about the dating methods that give millions and billions of years? These are far from infallible—they are indirect methods based on quite a few assumptions, and evolutionary geologists themselves will often not accept a radiometric date unless they think it’s correct (i.e. it matches what they already believe).

There are plenty of scientists who question their accuracy. For instance, the “RATE” project has discovered several striking examples of contradictions in these dating methods. If you want, you can get their book or movie called Thousands...Not Billions and learn about some of their remarkable results.

If you do a bit of research, you will find that there is a lot of evidence of radiometric dating not being accurate (like dates of millions of years for lava flows that occurred in the past few hundred years or even decades). There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are incorrect for rocks of known historical age.

Another problem is the conflicting dates between different methods. For example, in Australia, some wood was found that was buried by a lava flow. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon dating at about 45,000 years old, but the rock it was in was ‘dated’ by the potassium-argon dating at 45 million years old (45 thousand and 45 million)—just a little discrepancy there.

Many people are confused because they think there are hundreds of dating methods that prove the earth is billions of years old. What you have to realize is, not only are all dating methods based on assumptions, but the majority (over 90%) contradict the idea of billions of years. There are hundreds of dating methods that contradict the billions of years.

For instance, the amount of sodium accumulating in the sea. Using uniformitarian assumptions, the sea is less than 62 million years old, but it is suppose to be 3 billion years old—that’s a major discrepancy there. Now, I don’t think it’s 62 millions years old—We don’t know how salty it was when God created it and Noah’s Flood definitely would have upset the salt content in the sea.

And take the amount of sediment accumulating on the sea floor. Using uniformitarian assumptions, the sea is less than 12 million years old. But again, it’s suppose to be 3 billion years old. Now, I don’t believe it’s 12 million years old—Noah’s Flood would have added a lot of sediment to the sea floor.

The thing is, all dating methods are fallible, based on assumptions about the past. No one can prove the earth is young and no one can prove the earth is old. We live in the present and when we extrapolate back, we have to make a lot of assumption. None of man’s methods are infallible.

Dr. Jonathan Sarfati put it well: “Creationists admit that they can’t prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: ‘Most of what I learned of the field in graduate school is either wrong or significantly changed.’ Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present processes to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all age-dating methods, including those which point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.”

Answer 2

fossils were formed during noah's flood, only 2 of each animal were saved, so many of the others would be fossils.

the earth is estimated (using biblical timeline), to be about 6,000 years old. the fossils would be around 4,000 years old.

as for dinosaurs, i believe they existed before noah's flood, perhaps even for a while after. the Bible decsribes a dinosaurs, although i do not know where. It refers to a large lizard, in addition to a few other traits of dinos.

i do not think dinosaurs were as agressive as in movies such as Jurassic Park. I dont think they were so densly populated either.

short answer: creationism says fossils are not as old as people say. carbon dating has been proven wrong many times.

Answer 3

You'll hear anything in church or on TBN.

Does that poster really call herself "brains", the one who said "trillions of years old"?

Hmm.

Radiometric dating is used on fossils. Carbon dating is used on organic matter less than 50,000 years old. Google "Potassium Argon" and get back to me.

Answer 4

Some will say they're fake, and others will say they're just not that old, and humans did indeed live with dinosaurs. Either way, these people are muppets.

Answer 5

some people think that since the written history of mankind 6000 years old, that the earth is six thousnad years and 7 days old. lierally.

sad, really.

Answer 6

some one told me that the devil put fossils there to confuse us LOL

Answer 7

i believe that dinosaurs etc are real as dinosaurs are indirectly mentioned in the bible but i don't think they are as old as scientists claim as the world isn't trillions of years old

Answer 8

Carbon dating is flawed and a mere false theory anyway.