Anti-evolutionists: please explain the fossil record

there have been many threads that critique the theory of evolution.
Ok, let’s leave evolution behind and find a better explanation of the indisputable fossils that we find scattered around the earth.

For instance, we have found lots of human fossils. Some of these fossils are modern human. But some do not seem to be from modern humans. One example is the Neanderthals... who apparently interbred with Homo sapiens before going extinct. How do Neanderthals fit into creationism?

And there are even earlier fossils
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...lopithecus-human-ancestor-20171206-story.html
What is amazing is that all these very early fossils seem to come from Africa
Why is this? Did the creator create the different races on different continents?
Why do you have extinct types of humans? If the creator created all humans in Africa, how did humans spread out across the world in a few thousand years? Did the creator create the Chinese in Africa, and then have all of them migrate to China? Why are all the old human fossils found in Africa? We find all sorts of fossils in America... but not human fossils... why is that.

It seems to me that there must be a non-evolutionary explananation that better explains the fossil record... I just have not heard that “better” explanation of the fossil record.

 

We don't have 'lots of human fossils'; the entire collection of alleged human ancestors, which are nothing but extinct species of apes really, will fit on my kitchen table; not much of a 'fossil record' to account for millions of years of 'evolution', actually, and as for different races, the obvious answer is humans don't come from a common ancestor, and in fact originated in different regions. Given the claims of 'evolution', it is impossible so much differentiation can happen among humans in the time spans claimed.

We now also know DNA is not useful as a dating method. The everybody came 'Out Of Africa' speculation is quickly being rebutted.

As for Neanderthals, they were humans; recent analysis attribute their physical differences to being afflicted by rickets, a result of dietary change from migrations, and they weren't a separate species.

 

You want an answer..

You're posting right?


Dawrin is wrong

 

Ran across this while looking up stuff for another topic.


The story of Babel is important for several reasons.

1. It explains the beginning of and reason for the various languages of mankind.

2. It probably explains the origin of the "races" within humankind.

"The separate language groups no longer could inter-marry freely with the rest of mankind. As in-breeding and lack of access to the larger pool of genes occurred, ethnic characteristics developed. Furthermore, each local environment tended to favor selection of certain traits, and eliminate the others. Ethnic characteristics, such as skin color, arose from loss of genetic variability, not from origin of new genes through mutation as suggested by evolution.

"The concept of race is an evolutionary idea ... ( Acts 17:26). All humans possess the same color, just different amounts of it. We all descended from Noah and Adam." [Note: A plaque explaining an exhibit at the Institute for Creation Research Museum, Santee, Calif, which I observed on May21 , 1997.]

"The Bible doesn"t tell us what skin color our first parents had, but, from a design point of view, the "middle [color]" makes a great beginning. Starting with medium-skinned parents (AaBb), it would take only one generation to produce all the variation we see in human skin color today. In fact, this is the normal situation in India today. Some Indians are as dark as the darkest Africans, and some-perhaps a brother or sister in the same family-as light as the lightest Europeans. I once knew a family from India that included members with every major skin color you could see anywhere in the world.

"But now notice what happens if human groups were isolated after creation. If those with very dark skins (AABB) migrate into the same areas and/or marry only those with very dark skins, then all their children will have very dark skins. (AABB is the only possible combination of AB egg and sperms cells, which are the only types that can be produced by AABB parents.) Similarly, parents with very light skins (aabb) can have only very light-skinned children, since they don"t have any A or B genes to pass on. Even certain medium-skinned parents (AAbb or aaBB) can get "locked-in" to having only medium-skinned children, like the Orientals, Polynesians, and some of my ancestors, the Native Americans.

"Where people with different skin colors get together again (as they do in the West Indies, for example), you find the full range of variation again-nothing less, but nothing more either, than what we started with. Clearly, all this is variation within kind....

"What happened as the descendants of medium-skinned parents produced a variety of descendants? Evolution? Not at all. Except for albinism (the mutational loss of skin color), the human gene pool is no bigger and no different now than the gene pool present at creation. As people multiplied, the genetic variability built right into the first created human beings came to visible expression. The darkest Nigerian and the lightest Norwegian, the tallest Watusi and the shortest Pygmy, the highest soprano and the lowest bass could have been present right from the beginning in two quite average-looking people. Great variation in size, color, form, function, etc, would also be present in the two created ancestors of all the other kinds (plants and animals) as well.

"Evolutionists assume that all life started from one or a few chemically evolved life forms with an extremely small gene pool. For evolutionists, enlargement of the gene pool by selection of random mutations is a slow, tedious process that burdens each type with a "genetic load" of harmful mutations and evolutionary leftovers. Creationists assume each created kind began with a large gene pool, designed to multiply and fill the earth with all its tremendous ecologic and geographic variety. (See Genesis , chapter1.)" [Note: G. Parker, pp111 , 113-14. See also Ham, et al, pp15-16 , 131-55. See ibid, pp19 , 197-207 , for discussion of how animals could have reached remote parts of the earth.]

"Many thinkers labor under the illusion that evolution is an empirical science when in fact it is a philosophy." [Note: Norman L. Geisler, "Beware of Philosophy: A Warning to Biblical Scholars," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society42:1 (March1999):7.]

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/dcc/genesis-11.html

Not a bad secular explanation in all of that, given the utter lack of real empirical evidence for the improbable and bizarre speculations from the Darwinism faddists.

 

I've heard this same argument before. I'm more interested in seeing those opposing the theory of evolution present scientific evidence for other explainations. All they ever do is try to point out flaws in the theory of evolution without presenting any alternative of their own.

 

Creationism has it's own lack of empirical evidence. I'm not even sure what the issue really is sometimes. Is it that evolution lacks evidence, or that some people don't want to come from primates?

 

Because it's you ..I don't want to get personal, but why are you still here?

Gods not done with you yet , what are the chances my friend?

 

You think it's random, that your talking to me now , at this forum ? Look in the mirror what do you see?

 

Uh, er, uh, it was The Devil, or something!!! I can't explain it, uh, like scientists can so eloquently explain it, but, uh, it was The Devil, I think....yeah, that's the ticket!

 

Dawkins seems, no offense, more educated in this regard than you are, so I'm going to stick with DAWKINS on this, rather than on you....sorry.

 

Too bad Jesus isn't real, or he'd, well if he cared about Christians that is, come down and tell us, educate us, as to what the real true answer is. But Jesus is not actually still "alive" in any way at all so of course he doesn't do that. OR, he is indeed alive today but he obviously doesn't CARE about his followers enough to come down today, explain the truth, and prevent them from looking so utterly foolish - either way he's not worth my worship. I deserve better than that, and so do Christians.

 

It's fine you have your beliefs I have mine ..will never know the absolute truth ever ...I remember harry telling us if there is a after life he would escape and tell us ..

 

Link?

 

Jesus , all live in all of us.. there is no proof to deny it.

 

Yes, we DO know that evolution is true, and the Bible is too stupid to tell us that truth - because it was not from god in any way.

 

That was my opinion, so nothing to link to.

 

Prove it's true - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

Give us proof that the human soul (an entity that survives after death) exists - that your god threatens with eternal torture...that's because he's not real enough to prove his divinity.

 

Actually we have hundreds of hominid fossils and dozens of highly complete fossils that are obviously not ape and have legs, faces, and brains that are definitely not like any modern ape. It would be extremely difficult to fit them all on a kitchen table. The oldest hominid fossils by far are in Africa so I don't see where this claim that we originated from all over is coming from. Humans have differentiated but we are actually 99.9% the same and humans are far more similar genetically than most other species. We do look very different but most of that is just melanin, skin color, and minor adaptation to the environment. We can actually look at the level of genetic difference, and since we know the amount of background mutations we can calculate how long that difference would have evolved. This is called the molecular clock and if you can show that the molecular clock shows that humans would have taken 20 million years to evolve instead of 200,000 that the fossils say, be my guest but we haven't seen that refutation yet.

 

The amount of genetic diversity is so immense among humans that all of it couldn't have come from just two people, they have only a limited number of genes. If Adam and Eve were two white people and had kids and genetic diversity decreased instead of increased then we would end up with people who looked a lot like Adam and Eve, basically almost clones. However every person on the planet has 100 mutations each and so genetic diversity will increase no matter what so you are just wrong that it will decrease.

Evolutionists believe in evolution because there is highly convincing genetic, morphological, and fossil evidence for evolution. For example, retroviruses sequences are DNA inserted by viruses and inherited and we find that most retroviruses between humans and chimps are shared in almost the exact same location. We also have a fossil record that is ordered from primitive to advanced and if evolution wasn't true at least one human or other big mammal would be found in the lower layers but instead the fossil record has a near perfect ordering. We also have a lot of transitional fossils between humans and apes, whales, horses, reptiles to birds, and fish to reptiles that fit almost perfectly in this order.

Also languages evolve very quickly and its crazy how the languages of isolated populations start diverging so that is the reason why different languages exist not some myth about a tower of babel. It does seem cruel to punish everyone with a different languages because a few leaders wanted to build a big tower. Its a silly myth.

 

'Hominid' is a term used to segue away from 'human'. It avoids addressing the lack of a fossil chain by throwing bones from extinct species of apes and monkeys into the evidence chain and claiming them as 'evidence' because of some vague similarities. Even those have no chain of evidence, they appear across gaps of millions of years and hundreds of thousands of years themselves.

And again, it's not up to anybody to refute some claim pulled out of somebody's ass and then claim if they can't that is validation of the original claim. Try refuting the claim we came from Mars; if you can't that means we did indeed come from Mars, according to the 'logic' the 'rational' evolutionists are using.

As for mutations, most of the evolution theories require literally millions and billions of them, and all conveniently placed, and all positive mutations to boot; given how rare positive mutations are, that is highly unlikely, and also in many cases confuses mutation with adaptation, which aren't the same thing.

 

I would like to see the fossil record explain the developement of an "eyeball".

 

They have hand waves for everything; they just have no chain of evidence for any of it. My family tree goes back some 400 years here, and we still haven't turned into Aztecs, and as far as I know no Dutch settlers in South Africa have morphed into Zulus, etc., that sort of thing.

 

As i said, we are looking for YOUR answer that BETTER explains the fossil record

 

I said at the outset that we are leaving evolution behind and looking for a better and more coherent explanation of the diversity of indisputable evidence such as the fossil record