And where is the proof that they are millions of years old? Age and dates are significant.
Even if the earth is *not* millions of years we still have no evidence of a global flood. Even if evolution isn't true, the evidence still wouldn't support YEC and a global flood, it would support progressive creationism
Geological formations ALL AROUND THE WORLD suggest a flood. So why wouldn’t it have been global?
I'm listening. How do geological formations do that?
Look at geology and paleontology. I can’t give all the evidence at once but let’s start here. Volcanic eruptions have proven that it is possible for catastrophic events to cause new geological formations. So scientists should have no problem accepting the possibility that the flood formed some of them. There is more evidence in the study of the preservation of soft-bodied creatures. That is almost impossible. But we see it. It must happen very quickly or else the soft body parts will deteriorate. We have plenty of canyons that are best explained to have been carved by catastrophic events rather than slow gradual processes. I don’t trust evolutionary dating one bit because it relies on assumptions.
Look at geology and paleontology. I can’t give all the evidence at once but let’s start here. Volcanic eruptions have proven that it is possible for catastrophic events to cause new geological formations. So scientists should have no problem accepting the possibility that the flood formed some of them. There is more evidence in the study of the preservation of soft-bodied creatures. That is almost impossible. But we see it. It must happen very quickly or else the soft body parts will deteriorate. We have plenty of canyons that are best explained to have been carved by catastrophic events rather than slow gradual processes. I don’t trust evolutionary dating one bit because it relies on assumptions.
There's no such thing as "evolutionary dating." As I said we have evidence for numerous large scale mega-floods. We just don't have evidence for a global flood. Soft bodied preservation is not "almost impossible" and we know it happens in quiet, anoxic environments like ancient lakes. For example, Fossil Basin Wyoming is where we get some of the most well-preserved fossil fish in the world. But they are all freshwater fish that were fossilized in an ancient lake that died and settled to the bottom of the lake where there were anoxic conditions for preservation. One of the experts on Fossil Basin Wyoming is a creationist and he acknowledges that the tens of thousands of fossil fish we have were not buried in a global flood but in a freshwater ancient lake.
One problem with a global flood is we don't know where to put it. Where is the pre-flood/flood and flood/post-flood boundary? Every suggestion has insurmountable problems.
Also, fyi--the whole geologists assume gradual "uniformitarianism" deposition is not true. Maybe a hundred years ago it was, but no longer. Modern geologists recognize slow, medium and fast deposition. Modern geologists don't assume gradual rates of deposition. They determine rates of deposition based on the collective evidence, not "evolutionary assumptions".
But you can’t just assume that those lakes were always quiet. In fact, in a GLOBAL flood, they would not have been. I am still seeing major assumptions.
But you can’t just assume that those lakes were always quiet. In fact, in a GLOBAL flood, they would not have been. I am still seeing major assumptions.
Virtually every YEC recognizes that Fossil Basin Wyoming was an ancient lake. You can even walk the boundaries of the lake, and see where rivers entered into and see how the size of the lake expanded and contracted over time and the geochemistry of the sediments also confirms it was freshwater.
I've read that Christian geologists had given up the idea of a worldwide flood by 1830. The idea seems to have been revived.
Only among YECs
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"?
You looking at dead things fossilized in the earth and using your conclusions to undermine scripture doesn't exactly move me to doubt scripture, just your conclusions on death before the fall. It is the oldest debate, the oldest argument, did God really say that, and is it really true?
No, not undermining Scripture, just questioning certain interpretations, similar to how heliocentricism and the Copernican revolution called into question those who erroneously interpreted Scripture as supporting geocentricism. Again, it is observational and undeniable that 99% of the fossil record predates the first humans, giving an extensive record of death. It is as undeniable as the earth going around the sun instead of the other way around.
To be clear, I am not challenging the fall of Adam/Eve and death that came to humanity as a consequence. Scripture is clear that the day they disobeyed they would be doomed to die.
But what it *doesn't* say is that this was the first death ever or that other non-human parts of creation like animals, plants, bacteria, and fungi couldn't die. That is an assumption people read into Scripture that isn't actually there. Scripture doesn't say plants and animals and bacteria started to die too as a result of Adam/Eve's fall, so they could have been dying before the fall.
Truth and reality are the big things we are talking about now, and once we determine what is real, what is true, we can, like you are doing, compare one thing to another. I have an issue with your "observational and undeniable" because of the past things we have discussed. When you talk with certainty about things that supposedly occurred millions and billions of years ago, undeniable, and observations don't seem to be correct verbiage as far as I'm concern. Instead, it is simply just "questioning certain interpretations" of the various data points in question. You are using one interpretation of data and dismissing another in scripture, nothing more than that. I do not see this as a slam dunk in debunking anything.
The truth and reality is that 99% of the fossil record--a record of death--occurs before humans appear. We've discussed this before and how if you were to physically hike up the Grand Canyon you would see changes in the types of life on this planet. This is simple observational fact that is true regardless of whether the earth is billions or thousands of years old. Regardless of the earth's age, we still find a record of animal, plant, fungi, bacteria, algae, protist death in the fossil record that occurs physically prior to humans.
It's also truth and reality that Scripture does not tell us one way or the other whether any plants, animals, bacteria, etc. died before the fall, so the record of death (of non-human organisms) in the fossil record does not conflict with Scripture, because Scripture is not clear one way or the other. Scripture doesn't speak to the issue. Scripture only states that death came to humanity as a result of their disobedience.
If you disagree, then you'll have to tell me where in Scripture it says there was no death of non-human life like other plants, animals, fungi, etc. before the fall.
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).
Here’s the flaw with your question, that is... Your belief that death existing before the fall is undeniable. It is very deniable and I deny it. You mention that young earth creationists must accept that and that is precisely who does not have to accept that, we look at the fossil record very differently than the rest, and so your timeline is irrelevant to us, and therefore your question flawed in our eyes.
Once again, there is no "timeline". The actual time is irrelevant. Once again, we're talking about what we physically see when we hike up the Grand Canyon. For example, YEC interpretations recognize that Cambrian animals show up in the fossil record before humans do. Everyone agrees on the *order* in which things appear in the fossil record. Even YECs. Even if the earth was only a few thousand years old, the fossil record shows that 99% of things died prior to humans. That is a simple observational fact that can no more be denied than that the earth goes around the sun and is not flat. Only those who deny reality can 'deny' it. If it's not true, then tell me what we *actually* see when we hike up the Grand Canyon.
But more importantly, there is no conflict with Scripture, because Scripture doesn't say non-human plants or animals didn't die until the fall. Again, if you disagree, then you'll have to tell me where in Scripture it says there was no death of non-human life like other plants, animals, fungi, etc. before the fall.
Then you'll have to show me where in Scripture it says there was no death of plants, animals, fungi, etc. prior to the fall, and what we *really* see when we hike up the Grand Canyon.
The truth and reality is that 99% of the fossil record--a record of death--occurs before humans appear. We've discussed this before and how if you were to physically hike up the Grand Canyon you would see changes in the types of life on this planet. This is simple observational fact that is true regardless of whether the earth is billions or thousands of years old. Regardless of the earth's age, we still find a record of animal, plant, fungi, bacteria, algae, protist death in the fossil record that occurs physically prior to humans.
It's also truth and reality that Scripture does not tell us one way or the other whether any plants, animals, bacteria, etc. died before the fall, so the record of death (of non-human organisms) in the fossil record does not conflict with Scripture, because Scripture is not clear one way or the other. Scripture doesn't speak to the issue. Scripture only states that death came to humanity as a result of their disobedience.
If you disagree, then you'll have to tell me where in Scripture it says there was no death of non-human life like other plants, animals, fungi, etc. before the fall.
I ask you to show me death before the fall in scripture! I can show you the penalty for sin is death, so why would death be before sin, and more than that, if death was a natural part of the "life process," why call it a penalty in the first place?
Yes, death was a consequence/penalty to humanity for humanity's disobedience, and God warned Adam & Eve that this would be the consequence. In the day they eat they would be 'doomed to die'. But God did not say "you AND all of life on the planet will be doomed to die" did he? And the Romans verse is referring to humanity (*unless, of course, you believe that plants and animals and fungi can 'sin' and thus be morally culpable and subject to 'penalty' and also accept 'the free gift of God' of 'eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord).
Scripture addresses humanity's sin and death and free gift of eternal life available to humanity. All true. Equally true is that Scripture never states that animal and plant and fungi death came as a result of humanity's disobedience. We know that prior to the fall Adam & Eve were given every tree (except tree of knowledge of good and evil) for food, so we know at the very least there was death (of plants, plant parts, etc.) in the Garden of Eden prior to the fall (fleshy fruits are made of living cells after all).
An interesting side note is that the text indicates that Adam & Eve were created as mortal beings. This is indicated in Genesis where it's said 'from dust you came and to dust you will return.' Thus, it seems Adam & Eve were created as mortal beings who had access to immortality in the Garden of Eden via God's sustaining life-giving power (tree of life), which they were not forbidden from eating. It was only after disobedience that they were expelled from the Garden and no longer had access to the tree of life (which angelic guards were emplaced to prevent access to the tree of life). Adam & Eve were thus left to their mortality, no longer had access to immortality in the garden, and therefore truly were 'doomed to die' in the day they disobeyed.
Ok but what made animal phyla suddenly form so quickly? That would take a very lucky coincidence.
That wasn't your question. One step at a time. You asked for evidence of animal fossils before the fall. I provided it.