Evolution is not the real problem creationists have with evolution

Anyone can, of course, comment, but this is especially directed towards Christians of all viewpoints, whether evolutionist, theistic evolutionist, evolutionary creationist, progressive creationist, old earth creationist, young earth creationist, etc.

Ironically, evolution is not the main problem that creationists have with evolution, but "Death before the Fall."  If that is impossible, then millions of years of evolution (or even just life existing) is ruled out as a matter of course.

*But here's the problem: it is undeniable that the fossil record attests to death, predation, parasitism, disease, and even cancer before humans were even around (regardless of whether one believes in an old or young earth).  This means that like it or not, there was "Death before the Fall," and no amount of saying you don't believe that will change it.  Denial is not the answer.  The issue must be addressed and wrestled with, and in fact, there are many extensive treatments on the subject, but I'm curious to know how others deal with the issue.  

*So Christians, how do you or how would you explain "Death before the Fall"?

All you have done is say the fossil records prove that man came late.

Bible believers say it’s not true because the Bible says it’s not true and that you neglect to consider the flood.

Anything new?

There was physical death before the fall. God made man and breathed into him and he became a living being. The Hebrew word translated "being" refers only to the spiritual nature of God, angels, and yes man. The death after the fall had to do with the spiritual separation of man's spirit from God or spiritual death. Spiritual death was  new!

Here's my take, as a Christian with expertise in biology and paleontology who has studied these issues for decades:

1) The Bible does not say anything about non-human death (e.g., the death of bacteria, plants, animals, etc.).

2) Regardless of whether one believes in evolution or strict creationism or an old earth or young earth, everyone agrees with the principles of relative dating where, for example, the youngest sedimentary layers are deposited on top of the oldest layers.

3) Based on this alone and without making any assumptions about whether the earth is thousands or billions of years old, we can see that 99% of the life on this planet not only predates humans but has also gone extinct before humans even appear.  This means there was a lot of death prior to humans.

4) There is no evidence in the fossil/geologic record that a global flood has ever occurred at any time during the history of the earth.  There is evidence for massive mega floods, but not for a global flood.  I wish I could tell you otherwise, but I would be lying if I did.

*Thus, there was death prior to humans.  The Bible doesn't say there wasn't.  So, any theology or theodicy must account for this fact.

Good point.  The account does say they would surely die in that day, but they didn't physically die, suggesting this spiritual aspect.

Thank you tbwp10 I meant to include that point!

Their newest thing to explain this, is some phrase they made up called 'Hydro-static sorting."

idea being, all the species that went extinct, did so at the Flood. and then the waters sorted the fossils, by size. (Or not really.). Like sponges on the bottom, Dinosaurs in the middle. Mastodons on top of that. Then finally humans on the top.

Not sure how the big ones got in the middle. You'd have to ask them.

That’s not new, that theory’s been around for many years.

The ideas of hydrologic sorting and ecological zonation go back to Henry Morris and Harold Clark.  The problem is that no matter how hard one wishes neither works--neither is supported by the fossil and geologic records. 

We can map out different paleoenvironments through time vertically as well as their lateral extent.  We can identify fluvial (river), lacustrine (lake), eolian (dunes), and marine deposits, etc.  throughout the geologic record.  Rising and falling sea levels and shifting terrestrial environments can also be mapped out through time. 

At no time does sea level rise high enough to cover all land.  In the North American craton, rising sea level reaches it's greatest extent during the Paleozoic, covering almost all of what is present day North America.  This is not evidence for any global flood but instead is highly problematic.  For example, if almost all the land was underwater during the Paleozoic, then where were the dinosaurs hiding out?  Even if we allow for outlandish ideas of dinosaurs somehow all escaping Paleozoic "flood waters" (but not smart enough to escape Mesozoic "flood waters" when sea level was much lower), the tracks they left behind wouldn't "escape."  Yet, we find no dinosaur tracks in the Paleozoic.  This is just one of thousands of problems with "flood geology."

Nearshore benthic (bottom-dwelling) marine invertebrate assemblages and reef complexes don't simply occur at the "bottom" of the geologic record but throughout geologic time at all "levels" of the record in successions (i.e., there is no single ocean bottom as one would expect if all was the result of a global flood.  Rather, there are ocean bottom successions where we can observe marine life on the bottom of the ocean as it changes through time in the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic).  Same with multiple successions of reef complexes through time.  And on and on.

We also find so much evidence of in situ deposition (non-transported, deposition in place) with little to no hydrologic "sorting."  The record is filled with poorly sorted sediments and fossil assemblages that don't show Morris' "hydrologic sorting."

The evidence for a global flood just isn't there.

Animal fossils did not appear before sin because there was no death. Where is the proof that they existed before the fall of Adam and Eve?

There is plenty of evidence for a global flood. The geological formations suggest it. A flood is the perfect way to explain their formation. But I understand. Some scientists say it was multiple floods and multiple ice ages. But because these geological formations exist globally, it seems to me that it is more consistent with the evidence to say that the flood was global.

The Cambrian explosion!

About the sea level objection. Read the Genesis account of the flood. It says water poured down. The fountains of the great deep were broken up. This was no normal event.

How do you know the Cambrian explosion is proof that these fossils are millions of years old? And to me it seems very strange that there was just a sudden “explosion” in evolution. We should see THAT KIND of evolution happening today but we do not.

It should still leave evidence.  We have evidence for numerous large scale mega-floods but we simply don't have evidence for a global flood.  

You didn't ask me about their age.  You asked me where is the "proof" of animal fossils before the fall.  The Cambrian explosion of animal phyla is evidence.  Unless there are some human fossils in the Cambrian that you know about that I don't?

Ok but what made animal phyla suddenly form so quickly? That would take a very lucky coincidence.

I don’t see any of that happening today.

And where is the proof that they are millions of years old? Age and dates are significant.

Geological formations ALL AROUND THE WORLD suggest a flood. So why wouldn’t it have been global?