ABSTRACT: The fossil record and various theories that drive its
interpretation. Can evolutionists claim that earlier species' exist to
prove their theory? What if the fossil record is even less imperfect
than evolutionists believe?
On Tue 27 Jun 1995 12:40 CT you wrote:
>Ashby wrote:
AC>"The fact remains that if creature B appears in the fossil record
>after creature A, there is no reason to believe that creature B
>actually existed before creature A. The best the evolutionist can say
>is that it is possible that the vagaries of fossilization have
>created a false impression."
GM>I don't disagree except at one point. Let us assume that PC is
>correct and that the animals are fossilized according to the way
>geologists think they are. God creates an animal, it multiplies and
>begins to spread over the land. Occassionally one of these critters
>is going to be buried by a landslide or caught in a flood an leave
>it's bones in the rock record. If PC is correct it is still
>reasonable to believe that the first appearance in the fossil record
>is not the first appearance of that form on earth. Unless you are
>willing to believe that in every case, God caused the fossilization
>of the very first individual of each form He created. I doubt that
>you would make such a strong statement. So why would you expect such
>a strong statement from the evolutionist?
I must agree with Glenn on this point. PC cannot deny some of the
evolutionist data, since its own model predicts it too.
GM>If ICR is correct and the animals all represent the remains of the
>pre-flood world, then their first fossilization once again is long
>after their first appearance on earth.
Since they hold the Flood was in about 2300BC, it's not too "long
after"! <g>
GM>As near as I can tell, every theory of prehistory, PC, fiat
>creation followed by flood, or evolution absolutely requires that
>individuals of the various species were in existence long before the
>first of their kind was fossilized.
Yes, but I doubt if Ashby was claiming that. We are talking about
large slabs of time compressed into relatively short stratas of rock.
If you find species B in one stratigraphic time zone, are you not
pushing it a bit too far to say that there must be an earlier species
A in an earlier time-zone? Remember Gould's argument - you are not
finding an individual, you are finding the survivor of a large central
population.
GM>What it appears to me is that there is a double standard.
>Evolution must work with the first appearance in rocks = first
>occurence on earth. While all Biblical, non evolutionary models get
>to work with first appearance in rocks not = first occurence on
>earth. Doesn't seem fair.
PC doesn't claim that. But perhaps you are claiming special treatment
in another way? Ashby's point is that we must only work with the
actual data recovered. You cannot invent earlier fossils that we don't
really know are there, in order to make crucial points for your
theory.
GM>It also seems that the best any theory can say is that the vagaries
>of fossilization or of the model create a false impression.
Darwin and Neo-Darwinists believed the fossil record was extremely
imperfect. Gould came along as an angry young man trying to make a
name for himself (and declare the evolutionary equivalent of the
American War of Independence from the Brits <g>) and said it wasn't as
imperfect as all that - the fossil record was a "faithful" record of
jerkiness. But OTOH it can't be too perfect, because that would also
tend to invalidate Gould's evolutionary theory. This shows that there
isn't much hard data. It is all theory-driven.
Now what if a progressive creationist came along and said that the
record is even more "faithful" than Gould believes? That the gaps are
very real and unbridged? Why is the PC's theory not allowed to drive
his facts?
God bless.
Stephen