1234456789101112131415
Welcome to the forum, Josiah.
@Joel_Duff do you know of any articles that deal with these questions directly?
He is assuming all the “fishapod” are in a direct line of descent. They aren’t and never have been hypothesized to be. They are more likely to be cousins of those ancestors. These are very amateur mistakes on his part.
This isnt responding to Rana directly but it’s addressing the same mistakes:
2 Likes
AiG has no real explanation as to why any fossils are in order.
4 Likes
@T.j_Runyon explained the problem with Rana’s “out of order” complaint. A similar example is Homo naledi. The fossil has a “mixed bag” of features, including some that appear very ancient. Based on this, early guesses on the fossil’s age pegged it as far back as 2 million years ago. Instead, it turned out the bones were just 250,000 years old, so they existed in S. Africa at the same time as H. sapiens. Out of order? Evolution overturned? Nope. As T.J. pointed out with tetrapods, H. naledi is a cousin, not a direct ancestor, of sapiens. Naledi likely arose as a species 2 mil. years ago, but the only fossils we’ve found are just 250,000 years old.
On the AiG and “Is Genesis History?” articles, I won’t bother addressing the differences between where tracks and fossils are found. There’s a much bigger problem with their theory than that. From “Is Genesis History?” –
If you think the earth was covered by a global flood, then finding trackways below body fossils makes a lot of sense. Those animals that made the trackways were lifted up and carried higher, their bones and teeth and shells eventually being buried by the rising floodwater. As a result, their body fossils would be found consistently higher than their tracks.
The problem? The tracks were left in still water. The waters had to be still, or the tracks would’ve been washed away. Does that sound like a global flood to you? As AiG puts it:
What if, when the “fountains of the great deep were broken up” (Genesis 7:11), the spreading waters surprised the trilobites living on the ocean bottom? As the water became muddy, trilobites scurried about in terror, leaving their tracks behind them. Then as a layer of mud covered their tracks, they climbed through the mud and left tracks on the next layer—repeating this process until they finally succumbed in exhaustion and were themselves buried and preserved.
Layers and layers of mud being laid down, yet these delicate tracks were undisturbed? It’s silliness that knows no bounds. Here’s an interesting post by @gbob that explains a bit more:
Absolutely, and most likely not only were still, but probably the water was lowering and the mud tracks were exposed, dried and hardened before being covered with silt or sand when the water slowly rose again. The fact that tracks are there actually is more consistent with a falling water level.
While this article by Joel Duff addresses elephant footprints, it and related articles on his excellent site are a good source to get a good idea as to how footprint fossils came about:
1 Like
Darwin covered this topic 150+ years ago:
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.