1.DISCUSSION 11FOSSILS ANDCREATIONAriel A. Rothsciencesandscriptures.com

2. OUTLINE1. Two contrasting views2. Fossils and evolution3. Creation explanations for the fossil sequence(a) Ecological zonation(b) Motility of animals(c) Buoyancy factors4. The scarcity of human remains in the geologic column5. Human origins and the fossil record6. Trying to reconcile the Bible and the long geologic ages7. Conclusions8. Review questions 3. 1. TWOCONTRASTINGVIEWS 4. 1. TWO CONTRASTING VIEWSThe biblical model of origins is that God created thevarious creatures and plants a few thousand years ago, insix days. Many centuries after that, a worldwidecatastrophe, the Genesis Flood, destroyed most of the lifethat was present on the earth at that time. Both creationand the Flood are important to interpretations of the fossilrecord. Speaking of the Flood, the Bible states:And every living substance was destroyed which wasupon the face of the ground, both man, and cattle, and thecreeping things, and the fowl of the heaven: and they weredestroyed from the Earth: and Noah only remained alive,and they that were with him in the ark. And the watersprevailed upon the earth an hundred and fifty days.Genesis 7:23-24. 5. 1. TWO CONTRASTING VIEWSIn the context of the biblical account, most of the fossilrecord, which is harbored in the sedimentary layers of the crustof the earth, would seem to be the result of the great GenesisFlood. We can come to this conclusion, in part, because thereseems to be little time between creation and the Genesis Flood.Furthermore, there seems to be little of the kind of activity thatwould deposit the huge sedimentary layers including theburying of uncounted numbers of organisms that became fossils.Since the Flood, there has also not been that much time formajor sediment deposition and fossil preservation. Underordinary conditions, fossilization is a rare event. Hence, itappears that most of the fossils must have come from the Flood,and that Flood is the catastrophic event that harmonizes thefossil record to biblical history. 6. 1. TWO CONTRASTING VIEWSIn contrast to the biblical view, the picturepresented in evolutionary textbooks of science isthat fossils represent past life that was graduallyburied over billions of years, and as you go upthrough the geologic layers all forms of plant andanimal life have continually and systematicallyundergone changes with the passage of time, aprocess termed organic evolution. Strahler AH.1977. Principles of Physical Geology, p 106.Which is true, the Flood or evolution? 7. 1. TWO CONTRASTING VIEWSThe biblical view and the evolutionary view couldhardly be more different. The Bible speaks of life formshaving been created by God a few thousand years ago, anda major destruction of life by the Genesis Flood.Evolutionists speak of life arising by itself a very long timeago, and of a slow evolutionary process producing thevarious forms of the organisms we find as fossils.The creationist sees the fossil record as mostly arecord of the destruction by the great Genesis Flood. Theevolutionist sees the fossil record as a record of a slowgradual evolutionary process. These two very contrastingperspectives need to be constantly kept in mind as we lookat interpretations of the fossil record. The next slideillustrates how these two views relate to the geologiccolumn. 8. 1. TWO CONTRASTING VIEWSThis discussion assumes the reader issomewhat familiar with Discussion 10,FASCINATING FOSSILS of this series. A slide ofthe divisions of the geologic column is repeatedbelow for convenience. This present discussionshould be considered along with the two (number12 and 13) titled: PROBLEMS THE FOSSILSPOSE FOR EVOLUTION, part 1 and 2, so as toget a comprehensive view of variousinterpretations of the fossil record. 9. 2. FOSSILS ANDEVOLUTION 10. 2. FOSSILS AND EVOLUTIONThere are many problems for evolution.However there also appears to be a general,albeit erratic, progression of organisms fromsimple to complex as one ascends the geologiccolumn, and that is consistent withevolutionary views of progressive increase incomplexity over eons of time. See the slidebelow. 11. GENERALDISTRIBUTIONOFORGANISMSTHROUGHOUTTHEGEOLOGICCOLUMN 12. 2. FOSSILS AND EVOLUTIONEvolutionists find some fossil patterns that areconsistent with their theory. The slide below usesvertical lines to illustrate the more detaileddistribution of organisms in the geologiccolumn. Note that we essentially have onlymicroscopic organisms in the lowerPrecambrian, and in the Phanerozoic thevertebrate animals seem to show progressionin complexity with first appearances in fish toamphibians, then reptiles and mammals (seethe extreme right part of the slide). Theevolution of birds that first appear higher inthe fossil sequence is a controversial enigma. 13. SPECIFIC DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANSMS IN THE GEOLOGIC LAYERS. Putativeages are given in millions of years and are not endorsed by the author. 14. 2. FOSSILS AND EVOLUTIONProgression as one goes up through the fossilrecord is not very significant for invertebrateanimals and they lack intermediates between majorkinds. Progress in the plant kingdom can be arguedbut intermediates are notoriously lacking.Evolutionists consider the general advancement ofvertebrates in the fossil record to be some of thestrongest evidence for their theory of gradualdevelopment over time. Keep in mind thatvertebrates form only about 3% of all the livingspecies of organisms. While not a strongquantitative representation, they are the animals weare most familiar with and are in the focus of theissue. 15. 3. CREATIONEXPLANATIONSFOR THE FOSSILSEQUENCE 16. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONSFOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCEWe will discuss below three creation explanations forsome of the general progression, from simple one-celledorganisms to huge complex ones, that is seen as one ascendsthe geologic column. These are: (a) ecological zonation, (b)motility, and (c) flotation. These explanations all relate to theGenesis Flood which is the event that reconciles the fossilrecord to the recent six day creation by God as described inthe Bible. 17. 3. CREATIONEXPLANATIONSFOR THE FOSSILSEQUENCE(a) ECOLOGICAL ZONATIONTHEORY (EZT): 18. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONSFOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) ECOLOGICAL ZONATION THEORY (EZT): ASYNOPSIS The theory (EZT) proposes that the order and uniqueness, andthe moderate amount of progress one finds in fossils as oneascends the geologic column, is due mainly to the originalpattern of distribution (ecology) of organisms on the earthbefore the Genesis Flood. However, the many different patternsof vertical and lateral transport expected during thecatastrophic Flood would cause some variation in order ofdeposition. Also there may have been unusual horizontalpatterns of distribution of organisms before the Flood. HenceEZT is expected to reflect a general framework of preflooddistribution, not necessarily details. During the Genesis Flood, as the waters gradually rose, theydestroyed in order the various preflood landscapes (regions,zones), transporting, with the aid of gravity, sediments andorganisms to deeper depositional basins. 19. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONSFOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) ECOLOGICAL ZONATION THEORY (EZT): ASYNOPSIS The lowest zones (regions, landscapes, biomes) weredestroyed first, then subsequently higher and higherenvironments were destroyed and re-deposited in generallythe same original order in the depositional basins. This willbe illustrated below. Thus the ascending order of the fossil record reflects thegenerally ascending order of the ecological zones of theorganisms in the preflood world. The preflood ecology (distribution) was generally similarto our present ecology, but differed in significant detailsbecause there was a much greater variety of organismsliving then, and there were more seas at different levelsthan we now have. 20. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTThe next slide of a mountain illustrateshow the plant distribution pattern changesdramatically as one ascends up through thedifferent ecological zones. We have heavyvegetation lower down, changing to adifferent sparse vegetation higher up, to novegetation on top. The animals in the regionalso change dramatically with changes inaltitude. 21. ECOLOGICAL VARIATION WITH CHANGE IN ALTITUDE Notethe tall trees in the foreground and a gradual decrease in vegetation as oneascends towards the peak of this mountain in western France. 22. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTThe next slide gives details of the varietyof zones or realms one finds on the presentearth and how they vary with altitudinalchanges. 23. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTThe ecological zonation theory or model proposes that, as theBible describes, all the earth was affected by the Genesis Flood. All thedifferent zones of life from the deep ocean to the highest mountainswere involved.The model of the Flood that is proposed is that first the oceanswere disturbed, as marine animals were first buried when thefountains of the great deep of the biblical record (Genesis 7:11) burstforth. Then as the waters gradually rose higher and higher, the wavesdestroyed, in ascending order, the various zones (realms, landscapes)that existed at higher and higher levels of the world before the Flood.The sediments and organisms from these zones were buried in theorder that they were destroyed as waters rose and they were eroded,transported, and deposited one on top of another in lower lyingdepositional sedimentary basins during the Flood. 24. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTThe next four slides illustrate what wouldlikely happen should we have a Genesis type ofworldwide flood on our present earth. You can seea rising sea level, eroding the various zones at theright, and following the arrows, these would beburied one on top of another as they flow downdue to gravity to lower areas to the left.The colored arrows illustrate succeedingstages of movement of sediments, plants andanimals as expected in a slowly gradually risingworldwide Flood. 25. FLOOD STAGE 1: Disturbance in ocean 26. FLOOD STAGE 2: Flooding lowlands 27. FLOOD STAGE 3: Flooding midlands 28. FLOOD STAGE 4: Flooding highlands 29. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTThe sediments deposited by the Flood were not allmixed up as some might surmise for a world-wide Flood.They were deposited gradually over weeks or months.Sediments are heavier than water and not easily mixedup. Even during present major catastrophic floods thesedimentary layers are laid down usually flat, and arewell sorted into different layers and sediment types andare not all mixed up.The important mechanism of destruction during theFlood was the waves of the rising waters and notespecially the rain of the Flood event. This is illustratedin the next slide of waves during a storm I witnessed inHawaii. The waves are by far the more powerful agent ofdestruction compared to the rain that was falling at thesame time. 30. STORM WAVES, ISLAND OF HAWAII 31. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTThe fossils tell us that there were many differentkinds of organisms on the earth before the Flood that donot exist at present on the earth, and a different detailedecological distribution of organisms that accommodatesthem is proposed. These different kinds of organismssuch as dinosaurs or giant rushes had to subsistsomewhere, and they lived mainly in the middle of thePhanerozoic part of the geologic column. Also, one wouldexpect that a horrendous event like the Genesis Floodwould change the ecology of the earth. So somedifference is expected.Recall that EZT proposes that the order of the fossilsin the geological column reflects the general order of thealtitudinal ecological distribution of life forms before theFlood as the various zones were destroyed by the risingwaters of the Flood. 32. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTOn the basis of what is found in the fossil recordone can somewhat reconstruct what the distributionof organisms was like before the Genesis Flood. Thenext slide illustrates such a reconstruction.If the various zones (realms) illustrated in thenext slide should be eroded by the gradually risingwaters of the Flood, (four top arrows) and beredeposited in order in the low lying basins of theearth, you would end up with the sequence of fossilswe now find in the geologic column. 33. PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANISMS BEFORE THE FLOODNote the geologic column to the left, and major sea to the right. 34. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTThe ecological zonation model postulates a differentpattern of distribution of some organisms before theFlood than on the present earth. Recall that there wouldhave been a greater variety of types of organisms andecological zones, such as the Carboniferous swamp coalregions that show very different organisms than now liveon the earth. There were likely more seas at differentlevels than we have now. Also there may have been lessmixing in the distribution of organisms than now. Inother words the distribution of organisms was morerestricted and orderly than at present. Amphibians andreptiles dominated in the upper Paleozoic and Mesozoicrealms respectively, and there were many strange kindsof plants there also. 35. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTAt present, on the earth, we have the samegeneral increase in complexity of organisms as seenfor the fossil record. We note this as we go up fromsimple microscopic life in the deep rocks, that aremostly one-celled organisms, or a rare ( millimeterlong) worm that lives several kilometers down.Higher up, above these deep rocks, we have marine(sea) environments, with organisms of moderatecomplexity like sponges and fish; and then to themost advanced organisms, like dinosaurs andflowering plants, living on the higher terrestrialenvironments of our continents. 36. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTHowever there are significant differences in detailsof distribution, such as mammals and flowering plants,that were higher up in ecological distribution before theFlood than now on our present earth. Biologicalcompetition from many kinds of strange organisms thatdo not now live on the earth, but whose fossils are foundin upper Paleozoic and the Mesozoic layers, could haveforced mammals and flowering plants into higheraltitudes. Also, higher temperatures in middle altitudesmay have been a factor favoring a high concentration ofmammals and flowering plants in the cooler higherregions (Cenozoic), but this is only a suggestion. 37. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZT. FOSSIL EVIDENCE THAT AGREES WITH THEECOLOGICAL ZONATION THEORYThere are some major features of the fossil recordthat lend support to the ecological zonation theory.1. The rare Precambrian microfossils found in the deep rocksrepresent the simple microscopic organisms that live in deep rocksand that have become fossilized sometime in the past; before,during or after the Flood.2. The abundant and almost exclusively marine organisms found in thelower Paleozoic rocks represent the lowest seas before the Flood.This explains the appearance in the Cambrian of most animalphyla. This sudden appearance is called the CambrianExplosion (See Discussion 13) and is rather compelling evidencefor the creation model. 38. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZT. FOSSIL EVIDENCE THAT AGREES WITH THEECOLOGICAL ZONATION THEORY (CONTINUED)3. A variety of land (terrestrial) organisms first appear at about thesame level in the fossil record above the Cambrian Explosion inthe lower Paleozoic (Silurian). This represents the lowest landlevel of the world before the Flood. During the Flood the lowermarine (ocean) organisms were buried first. No significantevidence of our usual terrestrial organisms is found below this.This is an odd thing for the evolution model, but fits EZT nicely.4. The general fossil pattern of an ascending but erratic increase incomplexity is similar to the normal ecological distribution oforganisms on the earth now. We now have simple organisms in thedeep rocks, abundant marine organisms at intermediate levels inthe seas, and generally more complex terrestrial organisms onland above our major seas. Hence the general increase incomplexity, sometimes seen as evidence for evolution, is also whatwe would expect from the Genesis Flood. The erratic pattern, i.e.lack of fossil intermediates between basic kinds (Discussion 12),and extreme variability in assumed rates of evolution (Discussion13) fits better with EZT and creation than evolution. 39. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(a) EZTThe four factors listed in the previous slides, thatsupport the ecological zonation model can be easilyobserved in the fossil record. The slide illustrating thegeneral fossil pattern in the geologic column and the oneof Distribution of Organisms are repeated below foryour convenience so you can analyze these factors: Inthose illustrations note: (1) deep microorganisms:bacteria and algae in the deep layers, (2) marineorganisms first appear above, (3) more advancedterrestrial organisms first appear higher up, and (4) ageneral moderate, but erratic, increase in complexity asone ascends through the layers. 40. GENERALDISTRIBUTION OFORGANISMSTHROUGHOUTTHE GEOLOGICCOLUMNNote microscopicorganisms belowthe red line, landand marineorganisms abovethe blue line, butonly marineorganismsbetween the two. 41. SPECIFIC DISTRIBUTION OF ORGANSMS IN THE GEOLOGIC LAYERS. Putativeages are given in millions of years are not endorsed by the author. 42. 3. CREATIONEXPLANATIONSFOR THE FOSSILSEQUENCE(b) MOTILITY FACTOR 43. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(b) MOTILITY FACTORMotility would tend to sort some animals as theywould try to escape the gradually rising Flood waters.For instance, birds are rare in the fossil record and wellpreserved remains have so far not been found below themiddle Mesozoic (Jurassic). Birds would be expected toescape to higher ground during the weeks or months ofthe Flood, leaving only tracks in the soft sediments. Thiscould explain the appearance of some bird tracks in thelower Mesozoic (Triassic) below any good fossil birdbones. This has also been noted for some other animals.Whales, dolphins and porpoises, as well as turtles, thatbreathe air, would tend to remain near the surface of therising Flood waters. 44. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(b) MOTILITY FACTORLarger land animals would seem to be better able toescape the rising waters than smaller ones. This mayexplain the occasional observation of an increase in sizewithin a fossil type as one ascends through the geologiccolumn (Copes Rule of evolutionary biologists). Whileevolutionists attribute this phenomenon to gradualevolutionary advancement, it may be the result of thegreater ability of larger animals to escape the Floodwaters compared to their smaller counterparts.The picture of a flying egret in the next slide simplyillustrates a birds special ability to escape water. 45. EGRET ESCAPING THE WATERPhoto courtesy Leonard Brand 46. 3. CREATIONEXPLANATIONSFOR THE FOSSILSEQUENCE(c) BUOYANCY FACTOR 47. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(c) BUOYANCY (DENSITY, HEAVINESS) FACTORIt has often been suggested that sorting by density mightexplain the fossil sequence in the geologic column. Many simplerorganisms such as coral, snails, clams and brachiopods have agreater density than other animals, and are better represented inthe lower parts of the fossil record than animals of lower densitysuch as snakes, cats and dinosaurs. Could density be responsiblefor the fossil distribution pattern? This could well be a factor ona local level, i.e. in certain limited localities or zones, but not aslikely, but still possible, for the overall distribution for the wholeFlood. During a gradually rising Flood that took months, onemight not expect an overall density pattern for the whole fossilrecord. Besides that, we do frequently find some high densitymarine animals in the middle (Cretaceous) and the higher partsof the geologic column. 48. 3. CREATION EXPLANATIONS FOR THE FOSSIL SEQUENCE(c) BUOYANCY FACTORThe buoyancy (floatation) of vertebrate carcasses is anotherinteresting factor that might have played a role in thedistribution of organisms in the geologic column. Preliminaryexperiments indicate that some vertebrates tend to float longerafter death than others. On an average, birds float for 76 days,mammals 56 days, reptiles 32 days, and amphibians 5 days. Theseresults agree with the time frame of the Flood and with the orderin the fossil record. See the distribution of these kinds oforganisms given towards the right side of the more specificDistribution of Organisms slide provided earlier. However,there are many complicating factors for a complicated Flood.This phenomenon is illustrated in the next picture. 49. Floating dead bird (red arrow) in water above oneof the La Brea Tar Pits in Los Angeles, California. 50. 4. THE SCARCITYOF HUMANREMAINS IN THEGEOLOGICCOLUMN 51. 4. THE SCARCITY OF HUMAN REMAINS INTHE GEOLOGIC COLUMNThus far we have found good fossils of humans only in whatappear to be the top geologic layers. Evolutionists claim that manhad not evolved before then. However other reasons for this in acreation-Flood context are:1. There were not that many humans before the Flood so chanceof preservation and discovery are slim. According to the Bible,reproduction was slow before the Flood . On an average the firstborn son of the patriarchs that lived then, was born after thepatriarch was already 100 years old, and Noah had only 3 sonsafter 600 years.2. During the Flood, intelligent humans escaped to the highestregions where there were no higher sediments to bury andpreserve them. Without burial, organisms tend to disintegratequite rapidly and not be preserved, or if buried shallowly theycan be easily exposed and destroyed. 52. 4. THE SCARCITY OF HUMAN REMAINS INTHE GEOLOGIC COLUMN3. Before the Flood humans lived in higher, cooler regionsof the earth and would not be expected in the lower geologiclayers. There is significant evidence that the earth waswarmer in the past, and lower regions before the Flood mayhave been less pleasant for humans then, like being insidethe oceans is definitely less pleasant for us now.4. The Flood activity destroyed the evidence of humans inthe main part of the geologic column. 53. 4. THE SCARCITY OF HUMAN REMAINS INTHE GEOLOGIC COLUMNAs mentioned in an earlier discussion the questionof the absence of good fossil remains of humans,expected after some 1500 years or more of reproductionbefore the Flood, is not as serious a problem for creationas the question evolution faces as to why there are so fewhuman remains after some half a million or more yearsof humanoid reproduction. On the basis of evolutionarytime, one would expect that the earth should have filledup with humans a very long time ago, because humansreproduce quite rapidly and readily claim the territory.Human population growth is geometric and not linear.At our present rate of reproduction, world populationdoubles in size in less than a century, and overcrowdingcan occur in a relatively short time. 54. 4. THE SCARCITY OF HUMAN REMAINS INTHE GEOLOGIC COLUMNFurthermore, as mentioned earlier, why isthe good evidence of man, such as writing,buildings, history, etc. so recent, if man has beenhere for half a million years or more? The goodvalid evidence for man is recent and indicatesonly a recent existence as indicated in the Bible. 55. 5. HUMANORIGINS ANDTHE FOSSILRECORD 56. 5. HUMANS AND THE FOSSIL RECORDThere is no area of the study of fossil that is so fraughtwith contention as the persistent battle about humanitysorigin. Physical anthropologists debate endlessly about therelationship of various assumed evolutionary ancestors ofmodern humans. Part of the problem is that the variouskinds of fossils overlap each other up and down the fossilrecord and do not provide a good continuous evolutionarysequence. Some also suggest that the battles are due topsychological factors such as our personal involvement inthe question of where we came from. One of the greatesthoaxes ever created was when an apes jaw was attachedto a human skull. For 40 years, the fabrication, known asthe Piltdown Man commanded a very respected positionas an evolutionary intermediate, when proposing that apesevolved to humans.The real deep question at issue here is: Did we evolvefrom some ape-like ancestor, or were we created by God inHis image, as indicated in the Bible? 57. 5. HUMANS AND THE FOSSIL RECORDPopular illustrations of sequences of hominidorganisms gradually advancing from ape to modern manare hardly ever accurate, and the scientific literature aboutthis speculative topic is confounded by too many ideasrunning after too few facts.In general the hominid fossils, that are used toillustrate human evolution, can be divided into two majorgroups. There are the small australopithecines and similartypes, that are around one meter high and have a cranialcapacity (where the brain is) of around 450 cubiccentimeters. These fossils appear closely related to ourmodern apes. The famous fossil Lucy is an example. Thesecond group is the genus Homo group that can reachtwo meters in height and have a cranial capacity up tothree times that of australopithecines. Neanderthal man isan example, who interestingly had an average cranialcapacity larger than that of modern man. 58. 5. HUMANS AND THE FOSSIL RECORDHowever, there is one kind of fossil in the Homo group that isconsidered by some evolutionists to be highly important and it isnotoriously controversial. It consists of the few Homo habilis fossilsthat have a short stature and a brain size just a little larger than that ofthe australopithecines. The group is considered by some evolutioniststo bridge the gap between the small australopithecines and the muchmore advanced hominids (Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Homosapiens). Other evolutionists disagree and think that Homo habilisshould be classified with the australopithecines. It had more of thecrawling gait of an ape, than the upright gait of the rest of the Homogroup. It also had a much smaller average brain size than the othergroups in the genus Homo. There are conflicting interpretations aboutthe origin of various Homo habilis samples and some do not considerthe group to be a valid category. The gap between the advanced Homotypes and the australopithecines remains very large. 59. 5. HUMANS AND THE FOSSIL RECORDIt can be argued that the less advanced fossils in theHomo group are lower down in the fossil layers, thusillustrating evolutionary advancement over time as you goup through the layers over millions of years, but this is nota valid general conclusion. The time overlap of the variouskinds of Homo fossils as one ascends the fossil layers isextreme and negates the common illustrations of mansgradual linear evolution through various fossil types tomore and more advanced forms. It looks like many of thedifferent kinds of Homo fossils lived at the same time. Alsothere have been significant controversies over the dating ofsome of the layers. 60. 5. HUMANS AND THE FOSSIL RECORDIn general, those who believe the Bible point out thatthe australopithecines likely just represent another createdkind of ape, and has nothing to do with mans evolution.With the exception of the controversial and enigmaticHomo habilis kind, that is likely an australopithecine ormay be an invalid grouping; the rest of the Homo grouprepresents humans created in Gods image, spreading overthe earth after the great Genesis Flood. 61. 5. HUMANS AND THE FOSSIL RECORDThe idea that man originated from a kind of ape runs intoespecially difficult scientific trouble when the amount of timeevolutionists propose for this feat is compared to the improbabilities ofmany millions of favorable chance mutations required by theevolutionary model. Based on the fossil record and other factors, it isestimated that man evolved from an ape-like ancestor some 5 millionyears ago. This 5 million years is way too short a time for the necessarygenetic changes involved. You have to have the right mutations at theright time and place, and they have to be selected through the barrierof all kinds of bad mutations that are generated much faster than goodones, and then they have to spread and be established (fixed) in theevolving populations, and that takes a lot of time. 62. 5. HUMANS AND THE FOSSIL RECORDEvolutionists have been pointing out thatthere arent that many differences betweenapes and man. It is often claimed that thegenetic formula of man is 98.5% similar tothat of chimpanzee apes. This is incorrect,and when the full DNA is compared thefigure is closer to the 80-90% range.Similarity of part of the DNA is expectedbecause the general anatomy of man andapes is somewhat similar. 63. 5. HUMANS AND THE FOSSIL RECORDCalculations based on likely details indicate extremeimprobability for evolution. The genetic formula for humans is around3.3 billion bases. The 15% (100% - 85%) difference between the DNAof humans and chimpanzees, means that to evolve humans from achimpanzee type you need 495 million (3.3 billion X 0.15) newfavorable mutations. But in 5 million years you have time for only500,000 ten year generations of slow reproducing primates to followeach other. Hence each generation would need close to 1000(495,000,000 / 500,000) favorable mutations. Recent data indicates thathumans have about 60 mutations per generation, and likely much lessthan 1 out of 1000 mutations is advantageous (some suggest only oneout of a million). Hence, it would take on an average, at least 16 (1000 /60) successive generations of primates to produce one favorablemutation. But you need 495 million new favorable mutations or 7,920million (16 X 495,000,000) generations to produce them. However,evolutionary time provides time for only 500,000 generationa. If oneallows for the complete separate evolution of both modern man andchimpanzee from an assumed common evolutionary ancestor 5 millionyears ago, this would double the number of changes, but still provideonly 1 million favorable mutation events. So evolutionary time is atleast 7,920 (7,920,000,000 / 1,000,000) times too short for man toevolve. 64. 5. HUMANS AND THE FOSSIL RECORDOne can also suggest that several advantageous mutations couldbe produced at the same time, but such synchronized random activityis less likely, and if you are going to consider all the mutations, theproblem for evolution becomes much, much worse, because for everygood mutation you have at least several hundred bad ones and theynegate survival value. It looks like we are degenerating fast, andevolution seems essentially impossible, while creation seems a lot moreplausible.Some references that provide more details and many morereferences to the intriguing question of the evolution of humanity andits genetic challenge include:Gauger A, Axe D, luskin C. 2012. Science & Human Origins. Seattle:Discovery Institute.Sanford JC. 2008. Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome.Classroom Edition. Third Edition. Waterloo, New York: FMS Publications.Behe MJ. 2007. Mathematical Limits of Darwinism. Chapter 3 in: BeheMJ. The Edge of Evolution. New York: Free Press.Lubenow ML. 2004. Bones of Contention. Revised Edition. GrandRapids. Baker Books. 65. 6. TRYING TORECONCILE THEBIBLE AND THELONG GEOLOGICAGES 66. 6. TRYING TO RECONCILE THE BIBLE AND THELONG GEOLOGIC AGESSome have tried to reconcile the sequence of differentfossil types in the Phanerozoic layers with the proposedlong geologic ages of millions of years, while at the sametime preserving the idea of a creator God. One popularidea proposes that God created many times during thelong geologic ages, gradually creating more advancedforms over the eons of time, with man created recently atthe top of the geologic column. This is called theprogressive creation model alluded to earlier. Otherssuggest God used evolution and this is called theisticevolution. While the details of the models remain vague,the number of adherents to these ideas is notinconsiderable. 67. 6. TRYING TO RECONCILE THE BIBLE AND THELONG GEOLOGIC AGESThere are serious problems with the progressive creation model.a. It does not agree with Gods own words in the Bible (Exodus20:11) that He created all in six days, nor with Genesis 1 that statesthat creation was in six days..b. In this model one runs into a logical inconsistency because we seethe effects of mans sin before man was created. The Bible describesGods creation as very good (Genesis 1:31), but we see evil in theform of predation occurring an assumed many millions of yearsbefore man. For instance, in the Jurassic period one sees rampantpredation as some dinosaurs chewed each other up long before manappears in the Pleistocene. But the Bible teaches that evil came intothe world as the result of mans sin (Genesis 3:17-19, Romans 5:12).How could we see the results of mans sin, before he was created? 68. 6. TRYING TO RECONCILE THE BIBLE AND THELONG GEOLOGIC AGESc. In the fossil record we see mass extinctions oforganisms at various levels. These are regions where largenumbers of organisms that existed in the layers below areno longer found higher up in the layers above.Paleontologists often describe six major massextinctions during the Phanerozoic. They occur aroundthe end of the following geologic units listed below. Seethe Geologic Column above for location.EoceneCretaceousTriassicPermianDevonianOrdovician 69. 6. TRYING TO RECONCILE THE BIBLE ANDTHE LONG GEOLOGIC AGESIt is difficult to reconcile these mass extinctions withthe work of any kind of creator acting before the majorproblems caused by mans sin. It seems like a uselessexercise for God to create so many different kinds oforganisms only to have them disappear later on in massextinctions. One would not expect such wholesale wastefulactivity from any creator intelligent enough to create allthese marvelous different kinds of organisms. On theother hand in the context of a Genesis Flood, thedestruction was brought on because man was only evilcontinually (Genesis 6:5), and humanity needed specialhelp. 70. 6. TRYING TO RECONCILE THE BIBLE AND THELONG GEOLOGIC AGESIn the progressive creation model these mass extinctionswould have occurred long before man was created. Why woulda creator repeatedly provide organisms to be later destroyedby mass extinctions for no apparent reason? This does notseem to fit well with the logical perceptive God described in theBible. The repeated mass extinctions are more easily explainedas the result of the Genesis Flood, as specific realms oforganisms living at different altitudes were destroyed by therising Flood waters. The biblical model seems to make moresense.d. It also seems strange that in the progressive creation model,God creates some kinds of life, and then waits for very longperiods before creating some other kinds, as the fossil recordwould suggest. Why would He wait millions of years betweenvarious creations? The model seems logically bizarre. 71. 6. TRYING TO RECONCILE THE BIBLE AND THELONG GEOLOGIC AGESFor theistic evolution it is proposed that Godcreated over billions of years by using evolution.Some of the problems mentioned above forprogressive creation, such as the consequences ofevil before man was created, also apply to theisticevolution. There are a number of scientificproblems with the model, such as the lack offossil evolutionary ancestors for major groups ofplants and animals (To be considered in thePROBLEMS Discussion 12 to follow). 72. 6. TRYING TO RECONCILE THE BIBLE ANDTHE LONG GEOLOGIC AGESFurthermore in theistic evolution we see a cruelsystem where those that are superior survive (survival ofthe fittest) while the less fortunate are eliminated. Asystem with such disregard for the weak is in sharpcontrast with the loving attributes of the God described inthe Bible. God is very concerned for the less fit and theerring, relentlessly trying to save the weak sinner. Onecan postulate a God that would create by using evolution,but it would not be the loving kind of God described inthe Bible. Also, the powerful God of the Bible would nothave to use a difficult process such as evolution to helpcreate various life forms. 73. 7. CONCLUSIONSFOR FOSSILSAND CREATION 74. 7. CONCLUSIONSAs one ascends through the geologic column,one finds a very general but erratic trend ofincrease in complexity of organisms.Evolutionists interpret this increase as gradualevolutionary development over eons of time.Creationists interpret this as a result of thegradual burial of organisms living on the earth atthe time of the Genesis Flood. 75. 7. CONCLUSIONSCreation explanations for the general increase incomplexity include:1. EZT. A gradual destruction by the ascending waters of theFlood of an ecological distribution of organisms over the earthas reflected by the fossil record. That distribution differed indetails from present earth ecology. However, the present generaldistribution of organisms on the earth also reflects an increasein complexity with microorganisms in the deep rocks, marineorganisms above, and more complex terrestrial organismshigher up.2. Motility of organisms, such as that of birds, during theGenesis Flood would affect fossil distribution.3. Buoyancy factors, such as carcass flotation, would also havesome effect on the ascending complexity found in the fossilrecord. 76. 7. CONCLUSIONSFossil distribution indicates a past that is somewhatdifferent than the present. It is also expected that thehorrendous worldwide Genesis Flood would have affectedthe distribution patterns of organisms. While it is oftenhard to establish what exactly happened in the past, thereare good explanations that agree with both the fossilrecord and biblical history.It needs to be kept in mind that in this area of inquiry,one is dealing with a past that cannot now be observed.Because of limited knowledge, our conclusions arenecessarily tentative. In this area of inquiry both carefulstudy and caution are highly desirable. 77. 7. CONCLUSIONSWhile we dont seem to have found good examples of fossilremains of humans that lived before the Genesis Flood, the overallscarcity of fossil humans is a more serious problem for theevolutionary model. Reproductive rates for humans are so fast thathumans should have filled the earth many times over in the hundredsof thousands or more years postulated for human existence by theevolution model.The fossil record of the assumed evolution of humans facesserious problems. It is confounded by gaps and overlaps, and theproposed time of 5 million years is totally inadequate for the necessarygenetic changes.Ideas such as progressive creation and theistic evolution,proposing that God created over eons of time, have serious logicalinconsistencies when carefully scrutinized, especially because in thesemodels death and evil seem to appear long before humans and theconsequences of their sins. 78. 8. REVIEWQUESTIONS(Answers given later below) 79. 8. REVIEW QUESTIONS -1(Answers given later below)1. Why is it that, in the context of a biblical model, many creationistssuggest that most of the fossil record (i.e. most of the Phanerozoic)resulted from the Genesis Flood?2. Describe how the ecological zonation theory proposes that the generalorder of the fossils we find in the geologic column reflects the verticaldistribution of organisms before the Flood.3. Briefly explain how (a) Precambrian microorganism; (b) an exclusivelymarine lower Paleozoic; (c) terrestrial and marine higher Paleozoic onup; and (d) a general erratic increase in complexity; fit well with theecological zonation theory (EZT) as an explanation for the fossilsequence.4. Not that many birds are found in the fossil record, and bird tracks arefound lower down than fossil birds. Furthermore several of the sametype of animal fossils get larger as one ascends up through the geologiclayers. What characteristic of animals could explain these facts in thecontext of the Genesis Flood. 80. REVIEW QUESTIONS -25. Are the buoyancy (flotation) and heaviness (sinking, density) of animalsacting during the Flood an explanation for the sequence we find in thefossil record?6. Thus far, good evidence of fossil man has been found only in the upperpart of the fossil record. What explanations can you give for this froma creation-Flood perspective?7. Briefly explain two main problems the fossils record poses for theevolution of humanity from an ape-like ancestor.8. Several problems were presented for the progressive creation model.What is that model, and why do so many endorse it?9. What is the theistic evolution model? How does it conflict with the Godof the Bible? 81. REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - 11. Why is it that, in the context of a biblical model, many creationistssuggest that most of the fossil record (i.e. most of the Phanerozoic)resulted from the Genesis Flood?There are thick layers of sediments with fossils in many parts of theearth. Under normal (present) conditions; sediments form very slowly. Inthe biblical account there is not much time between creation and theFlood, and also since that Flood and now, for the formation of such alarge volume of sediments under normal slow conditions. Hence, itappears that most of the fossil record would have to have been formedrapidly during the astonishing worldwide Flood described in the Bible.2. Describe how the ecological zonation theory proposes that the generalorder of the fossils we find in the geologic column reflects the verticaldistribution of organisms before the Flood.As the Flood started the fountains of the deep burst forth andmarine organisms in the oceans were buried first. As the Flood watersgradually rose, higher and higher landscapes on the continents wereeroded by the waves and their organisms deposited in order indepositional basins, until the highest mountains were covered with water.Hence the order of deposition of organisms in the fossil record wouldreflect the general vertical order of distribution of organisms before theFlood. 82. REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - 23. Briefly explain how (a) Precambrian microorganism; (b) an exclusivelymarine lower Paleozoic; (c) terrestrial and marine higher Paleozoic onup; and (d) a general erratic increase in complexity; fit well with theecological zonation theory (EZT) as an explanation for the fossilsequence.(a). The fossil Precambrian microorganisms represent the organismsthat live in the deeper rocks. This would be the lowest level of life on theearth before, during, and after the Genesis Flood.(b.) Higher up, the abundant and almost exclusively marine organismsfound in the lower Paleozoic rocks (Cambrian, Ordovician) represent theseas before the Flood. This explains very well the sudden appearance ofmost animal phyla in what is called the Cambrian Explosion.(c). The appearance of a variety of terrestrial (land) organisms higher upin the Paleozoic represents the lowest level of the continents (land) thatexisted before the Genesis Flood. There were also seas at higher levels.(d). The fossil record shows a moderate increase in complexity as onegoes up through the layers. This is expected from the order that existedbefore the Genesis Flood with simple life in the deep rocks, more complexanimals higher up in the lowest seas, and the most complex organisms onthe higher continents. The increase in complexity claimed by evolutionover long ages as one goes up the fossil record is also expected from thebrief Genesis Flood. 83. REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS -34. Not that many birds are found in the fossil record, and bird tracks arefound lower down than fossil birds. Furthermore we find that severalof the same type of animal fossils get larger as one ascends up throughthe geologic layers. What characteristic of animals could explain thesefacts in the context of the Genesis Flood.Motility. The birds flew to higher regions, and larger animals wouldbe expected to escape to higher regions than their smaller counterparts.5. Are the buoyancy (flotation) and heaviness (sinking, density) of animalsacting during the Flood an explanation for the sequence we find in thefossil record?Probably not, except in local situations. Also, fossils of very heavyanimals like clams and coral have been found at many levels of the fossilrecord, not just the bottom. On the other hand the duration of flotation ofthe carcasses of vertebrates is in a time frame that might explain why wefind amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds each starting in that orderin the fossil record. One can suggest that during the Flood, theorganisms now found higher in the fossil record, are there because theyfloated longer, but many complications would be involved. 84. REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - 46. Thus far good evidence of fossil man has beenfound only in the upper part of the fossil record.What explanations can you give for this from acreation-Flood perspective?There werent that many people before theFlood to be preserved.Humans escaped to highest regions wherepreservation is unlikelyBefore the Flood, humans lived only in thehigher regions where it was coolerThe Flood activity destroyed the evidence forman 85. REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - 57. Briefly explain the two main problems the fossils record poses for theevolution of humanity from an ape-like ancestor.(1) The fossils tend to fall into two major groups: theAustralopithecine types and the Homo types. Close examination of theHomo habilis kind, that is considered intermediate between the two maintypes, appears to be an Australopithecine. (2) Calculations indicate thatthe five million years of the fossil record that is proposed for theevolution of humanity, is many thousands of times too short for thegenetic good mutational changes required.8. Several problems were presented earlier for the progressive creationmodel. What is that model, and why do so many endorse it?The model proposes that God created many times making more andmore advanced forms of life over millions of years, finally creating man.The model is endorsed because it agrees with the popular concept of lifedeveloping over millions of yeas as suggested by current scientificevolutionary interpretations; but the Bible indicates God created all in sixdays. 86. REVIEW QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - 59. What is the theistic evolution model? How does it conflictwith the God of the Bible?Theistic evolution combines God and evolution by proposingthat God used the process of evolution to create the variousforms of life on earth.This model does not fit with the kind of God described in theBible. The powerful and all knowing God of the Bible wouldnot have to use an inadequate evolutionary process.Furthermore, evolution is a harsh process where the fittestsurvive and the less fit perish. This is not a process that thekind of God described in the Bible would use. God tries tohelp and save the weak and erring, not eliminate them asevolution would do. One can propose that some kind of Godwould use evolution, but it would not be the loving kind ofGod of the Bible. 87. ADDITIONAL REFERENCESFor further discussions by the author (Ariel A. Roth) and many additional references, seethe authors books titled:1. ORIGINS: LINKING SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE. Hagerstown, MD. Review andHerald Publishing Association.2. SCIENCE DISCOVERS GOD: Seven Convincing Lines of Evidence for His Existence.Hagerstown, MD. Autumn House Publishing, an imprint of Review and HeraldPublishing Association.Additional information is available on the authors Web Page: Sciences and Scriptures.www.sciencesandscriptures.com. Also see many articles published by the author andothers in the journal ORIGINS which the author edited for 23 years. For access see theWeb Page of the Geoscience Research Institute www.grisda.org.Highly Recommended URLs are:Earth History Research Center http://origins.swau.eduTheological Crossroads www.theox.orgSean Pitman www.detectingdesign.comScientific Theology www.scientifictheology.comGeoscience Research Institute www.grisda.orgSciences and Scriptures www.sciencesandscriptures.comOther Web Pages providing a variety of related answers are: Creation-Evolution Headlines,Creation Ministries International, Institute for Creation Research, and Answers inGenesis. 88. USE PERMITFree unrevised use for personal and non-commercialdistribution of this material in its original publicationmedium is granted and encouraged. Proper attributionshould be given. Permission for multiple printing forclassroom use or not-for-profit public meetings is alsofreely allowed.In using this material in this format, accurateattribution should be maintained for any illustrationswhere credit is designated. Many illustrations are by theauthor and free use is granted for all media. However,when credit to another source is given, permission mightbe necessary from the source for certain different kinds ofcommunication media than the present use.