The Missing Links in the Fossil Record

[The Barbarian]

I would call the rise of mankind "an explosion", in the last few thousand years. Would you agree?

Between 45,000 and 35,000 years ago, genetically modern humans achieved what anthropologist Marvin Harris in his book Our Kind calls cultural takeoff, which was almost certainly propelled by a linguistic takeoff. Based on anatomical evidence including an enlarged brain, a new, descended larynx and changes to the suboral cavity and tongue, both Harris and Donald believe that by at least 45,000 years ago Homo sapiens had fully developed speech and a complex oral culture.

Speech was the ideal medium for developing symbolic communication among people who lived close together, without compromising the visual and motor skills they relied on for survival. For one thing, speech does not interfere with other activities such as locomotion, tool or jewelry making. People were able to talk to each other and communicate relevant information much more efficiently and at times when it would have been impossible to use mimesis.
http://www.humanjourney.us/language-Evolution-OralCulture.html

We go from it being almost impossible to find traces of humans, to a world changed by humans in just a few thousand years. This is the blink of an eye in geological time.

The acquisition of language seems to be the first key, the one that left our particular subspecies the only one standing. The acquisition of written language seems to have been the key to national states, trade, and what we consider to be civilization.

That one is about 5-6 thousand years ago. Cultural take-off does tend to be much more sudden than biological change.

The latest take-off has been technological, which has changed culture to the same degree that language and then written communication changed things.

From the Cambrian explosion to the human explosion, the fossil record is one explosion after the other, such that they name each explosion Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian... etc, each with their own distinctive ecology, all fossilised separately.

In most cases, the transition was relatively lengthy, millions or years or so. Even the Cambrian explosion was perhaps 5 million years in process. The big exception is the K-T boundary, where it seems a large meteorite caused a huge disruption of the Earth's ecology; after the iridium boundary, no land animals larger then a few kilograms in size seem to have survived.

I tried Googling megalith culture which you mentioned, and it seems you are right that there are thousands of these standing stones scattered everywhere. An example would be Stonehenge which I visited a few years ago, and at that time they struggled to explain its function. I think it had something to do with calculating the seasons.

Seems to be so. One recently discovered feature of the henge there can be used to predict solar eclipses. And keep in mind, these guys seem to have had no written language at all. It seems their culture spread along the coast of Europe by groups who moved along the coast in vessels from one place to another.

It would be hard to date stones, but I remember there were holes for wooden poles among the stones, so maybe they found wood which maybe they could date.

Because the Earth's magnetic field changes over the ages, careful analysis of stones can be used for dating.

That is the trouble with stone axes, cave paintings and megaliths - I don't think these can be accurately dated. Nor can hominid fossils.

Sedimentary deposits cannot be directly dated, in most cases. Generally, igneous layers are used, and then a range of dates for bones can be found.

For deposits up to about 50,000 years or so old, carbon-14 analysis can be useful. But not every deposit can be analyzed by this, since there are a number of factors that can make such analyses impossible.

 

[iouae]

That is dishonest. The Bible tells us that most of humanity was destroyed in the flood. The Bible does NOT describe any other bottleneck. I will withdraw my claim of dishonesty if you wish to say you mis-spoke.

So the flood was a bottleneck, right?

And Genesis 1 was a kind of bottleneck, because the earth starts with 2 people. I don't see your objection.

If you are suggesting that some form of humanity existed before Adam and Eve, then you are promoting a Gospel destroying belief system. A belief in pre-humans has the same theologal problems as the belief in aliens. Last Adam died for the descendants first Adam. A belief in intelligent life forms apart from Adam is a belief in a rather cruel God. These 'people' would suffer from pain and death for no reason other than a cruel Creator. From God's Word, we know humanity and all creation suffers because of one man's sin. We live in a corrpted creation. Creation was not a re-do. In so days God created the heavens and the earth and EVERYTHING in them. To believe earth and life pre-existed is anti-Biblical.

If there is no life after death, I would still have been happy to have lived, and so would every dog, cat and guppy on earth today. There is nothing cruel about this glorious abundance of life.

I do not understand folks who see this earth as terrible. The "fallenness" is a lens religious folks put on. Every other creature is just too grateful to wake up to one more day of physical life. That is why every creature clings to it to the bitter end.

 

[iouae]

Because the Earth's magnetic field changes over the ages, careful analysis of stones can be used for dating.

As far as I know, this only pertains to igneous rock laid down, for instance, in the deep sea trenches, such as Reykjanes ridge in the mid-Atlantic. It does not apply to solid rock, but solidifying rock which captures the direction of the earth's current magnetic field. I feel YEC have a problem explaining the many pole reversals recorded in the rock around the ridges, but I know of no way of dating the time between reversals. But what I know is, this time was substantial.

Sedimentary deposits cannot be directly dated, in most cases. Generally, igneous layers are used, and then a range of dates for bones can be found.

For deposits up to about 50,000 years or so old, carbon-14 analysis can be useful. But not every deposit can be analyzed by this, since there are a number of factors that can make such analyses impossible.

I have just finished reading Richard Leakey & Roger Lewin "Origins reconsidered". I was amazed how honestly they describe human anthropology as chaotic, how unsure they are of how closely related each hominid line is to the next one, and how it is important to know the exact layer where the fossil was found, to date it.

It seems there is no other good way to date hominid remains. But this is circular too, because the strata are in turn dated by what types of fossils are found in them.

Leakey was quite welcoming of DNA analysis and genome mapping to show how various hominids are related, just as the human genome/genographic project today can say how all living humans today are related, and where they arose from.

C14 dating I put no faith in. Especially because C14 depends on the strength of solar radiation at the time, since C14 is a radioactive isotope created by solar radiation on CO2, and solar radiation can change due to the changes in atmospheric composition over the ages. For instance, I believe there was less solar radiation pre-flood, giving older dates for every pre-flood fossil containing C.

 

[The Barbarian]

C14 dating I put no faith in. Especially because C14 depends on the strength of solar radiation at the time, since C14 is a radioactive isotope created by solar radiation on CO2, and solar radiation can change due to the changes in atmospheric composition over the ages. For instance, I believe there was less solar radiation pre-flood, giving older dates for every pre-flood fossil containing C.

Fortunately, there's a way to calibrate it, and as you say, there were some corrections necessary.
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/201...tsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/

 

[iouae]

Fortunately, there's a way to calibrate it, and as you say, there were some corrections necessary.
https://thenaturalhistorian.com/201...tsu-c14-radiocarbon-callibration-creationism/

A great link, describing how varves are like tree-rings, formed in a volcanic lake in Japan, where every year the changing seasons lays down an annual layer in the lake. These layers prove the earth is very old, since annual layers go back far beyond 6000 years.

If only YEC would read Gen 1:2 to read "and the earth BECAME without form and void" meaning, there was a mass extinction event which left earth "without form and void" and that before this, dinosaurs roamed the earth, as did many other forms of life. And Gen 1:2 ALLOWS this translation, as the NIV says in its footnote.

 

[6days]

And Genesis 1 was a kind of bottleneck, because the earth starts with 2 people. I don't see your objection.

I think you have a honesty problem. You described Genesis 1 as a "restart" of human existence to Barbarian and as a "start" to myself.

Genesis 1 does not describe a restart of earth, and you are dishonest to keep saying that. Ex. 20:11 and other scripture is clear that the creation account is not a re-do, or a re-shaping of pre-existing material. "In six says, God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them".

 

[iouae]

I think you have a honesty problem. You described Genesis 1 as a "restart" of human existence to Barbarian and as a "start" to myself.

Genesis 1 does not describe a restart of earth, and you are dishonest to keep saying that. Ex. 20:11 and other scripture is clear that the creation account is not a re-do, or a re-shaping of pre-existing material. "In six says, God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them".

6days, you and Barbarian know that I am an old-earth creationist, since I never stop saying so.
Therefore how can I be trying to deceive anyone?

Here is the chronology to the flood

Calculated BC date for creation: 4004
Calculated AM date for the Flood: - 1656
Calculated BC date for the Flood: 2348
Current Year (minus one2): + 2011
Number of years since beginning of Flood: 4359

So the flood occurred 4359+6 since the above calculation was for 2011.
That means the flood occurred 4465 years ago.

What I am keen to research is whether varves and tree rings, and ice-core samples show a global flood 4465 years ago.

Some trees are 5000 years old, so they survived under water for the year the earth was flooded.
Do their rings show a flood.

And ice must have been under water, so cores should reflect this too.

Trees such as Pinus longaeva can potentially live forever. The fact that there are none older than 6000 years is evidence for a restart 6000 years ago.
Here is a site listing the oldest trees on earth.
http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

A person doing tree coring samples accidentally cut down the world's oldest tree when his coring machine got the core stuck in the tree. To retrieve the core, he cut down the tree to find he had killed the oldest recorded tree, when he counted the rings. Ironic.

 

[6days]

I am an old-earth creationist, since I never stop saying so.
Therefore how can I be trying to deceive anyone?

Perhaps you could say that you believe Genesis 1 was not really 'the beginning, but only a re-creation or a re-do? Or, is that not correct?

What I am keen to research is whether varves and tree rings, and ice-core samples show a global flood 4465 years ago.

It ultimately comes down to what you accept as your source of absolute truth. It comes down to which worldview you interpret evidence from. Here is a couple articles on varves, tree rings, and ice core samples from the Biblical position.
http://www.icr.org/article/varves-proof-for-old-earth/
https://creation.com/green-river-blues
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/new-ice-core-records-120000-years/
http://thecreationclub.com/tree-rings-and-varves/
Or... if you are familiar with heretical Biologos, an article refuting them ... http://www.icr.org/article/9856/

 

[True or False]

Perhaps you could say that you believe Genesis 1 was not really 'the beginning, but only a re-creation or a re-do? Or, is that not correct?
It ultimately comes down to what you accept as your source of absolute truth. It comes down to which worldview you interpret evidence from. Here is a couple articles on varves, tree rings, and ice core samples from the Biblical position.
http://www.icr.org/article/varves-proof-for-old-earth/
https://creation.com/green-river-blues
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/new-ice-core-records-120000-years/
http://thecreationclub.com/tree-rings-and-varves/
Or... if you are familiar with heretical Biologos, an article refuting them ... http://www.icr.org/article/9856/

God created everything.

True or false?

 

[6days]

God created everything.

True or false?

Yes... Exodus 20:11 tells us God created everything in six days. If your next statement is that God created evolution, then "no". Common ancestry is a false belief system that contradicts God's Word, and science.

 

[Jonahdog]

God created everything.

True or false?

False

 

[Jonahdog]

As far as I know, this only pertains to igneous rock laid down, for instance, in the deep sea trenches, such as Reykjanes ridge in the mid-Atlantic. It does not apply to solid rock, but solidifying rock which captures the direction of the earth's current magnetic field. I feel YEC have a problem explaining the many pole reversals recorded in the rock around the ridges, but I know of no way of dating the time between reversals. But what I know is, this time was substantial.



I have just finished reading Richard Leakey & Roger Lewin "Origins reconsidered". I was amazed how honestly they describe human anthropology as chaotic, how unsure they are of how closely related each hominid line is to the next one, and how it is important to know the exact layer where the fossil was found, to date it.

It seems there is no other good way to date hominid remains. But this is circular too, because the strata are in turn dated by what types of fossils are found in them.

Leakey was quite welcoming of DNA analysis and genome mapping to show how various hominids are related, just as the human genome/genographic project today can say how all living humans today are related, and where they arose from.

C14 dating I put no faith in. Especially because C14 depends on the strength of solar radiation at the time, since C14 is a radioactive isotope created by solar radiation on CO2, and solar radiation can change due to the changes in atmospheric composition over the ages. For instance, I believe there was less solar radiation pre-flood, giving older dates for every pre-flood fossil containing C.

1. Why do you believe there was less solar radiation pre-flood? What evidence do you have of that?
2. Are there any methods of radiometric dating you do have faith in? Why?

 

[True or False]

False

Can you name 1 thing God did not create?

True or false?

 

[True or False]

Yes... Exodus 20:11 tells us God created everything in six days. If your next statement is that God created evolution, then "no". Common ancestry is a false belief system that contradicts God's Word, and science.

God is life.

True or false?

 

[iouae]

1. Why do you believe there was less solar radiation pre-flood? What evidence do you have of that?

"The Clovis culture is a prehistoric Paleo-Indian culture, named for distinct stone tools found in close association with Pleistocene fauna at Blackwater Locality No. 1 near Clovis, New Mexico, in the 1920s and 1930s. The Clovis culture appears around 11,500–11,000 uncal RCYBP[1] (uncalibrated radiocarbon years before present), at the end of the last glacial period, and is characterized by the manufacture of "Clovis points" and distinctive bone and ivory tools. Archaeologists' most precise determinations at present suggest that this radiocarbon age is equal to roughly 13,200 to 12,900 calendar years ago. Clovis people are considered to be the ancestors of most of the indigenous cultures of the Americas.[2][3][4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

I believe Clovis culture was pre-flood, post Adam culture. But it is dated 11000 BCE by C14 dating.
I believe this is wrong, and could be easily explained if there was less radioactive C14 around pre-flood.

2. Are there any methods of radiometric dating you do have faith in? Why?

I have read so many times where C14 dating has proven incorrect that one gets to feel it may be accurate (by luck) but often it is totally inaccurate. I do believe it can be correlated with tree rings, but when used practically there are too many horror stories of C14 inaccuracy.

I don't have the same misgivings for the longer half-life isotopes such as ..
"Potassium–argon dating, abbreviated K–Ar dating, is a radiometric dating method used in geochronology and archaeology. It is based on measurement of the product of the radioactive decay of an isotope of potassium (K) into argon (Ar)."

These isotopes are not formed by solar radiation.

"When molten rock cools, forming what are called igneous rocks, radioactive atoms are trapped inside. Afterwards, they decay at a predictable rate. By measuring the quantity of unstable atoms left in a rock and comparing it to the quantity of stable daughter atoms in the rock, scientists can estimate the amount of time that has passed since that rock formed."

The trouble with radiometric dating is that it pertains to igneous rocks, not sedimentary, which is the kind of rock fossils are found in.

All absolute dating methods have issues.

All relative dating methods are far better. Such as...

"To determine the relative age of different rocks, geologists start with the assumption that unless something has happened, in a sequence of sedimentary rock layers, the newer rock layers will be on top of older ones. This is called the Rule of Superposition."

Ice core and tree rings and varves use one layer relative to another and thus can be calibrated against each other, and against known events such as volcanic eruptions.

 

[iouae]

Perhaps you could say that you believe Genesis 1 was not really 'the beginning, but only a re-creation or a re-do? Or, is that not correct?
It ultimately comes down to what you accept as your source of absolute truth. It comes down to which worldview you interpret evidence from. Here is a couple articles on varves, tree rings, and ice core samples from the Biblical position.
http://www.icr.org/article/varves-proof-for-old-earth/
https://creation.com/green-river-blues
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/new-ice-core-records-120000-years/
http://thecreationclub.com/tree-rings-and-varves/
Or... if you are familiar with heretical Biologos, an article refuting them ... http://www.icr.org/article/9856/

Nice links, thanks 6days.

The following I found interesting.

http://www.blogos.org/scienceandtechnology/age-earth-tree-rings.php

http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...nd-the-volcanic-record-of-the-1st-millennium/

 

[Jonahdog]

I believe Clovis culture was pre-flood, post Adam culture. But it is dated 11000 BCE by C14 dating.
I believe this is wrong, and could be easily explained if there was less radioactive C14 around pre-flood.

And the evidence for that is where?

 

[6days]

The truth is that scientifically the Earth appears much older than 6000 years.

Sorry that is not your quote but it is a quote from the article that you cited.


Iouae... The problem this guy seems to admit to in the article is that he places a higher value in secular opinions than God's Word. He seems unaware that science supports the truth of Scripture and the young earth. Here is an example... comets can't last millions of years. They lose mass every time they pass by the Sun, and they 'burn out. It's simple... comets support a young creation. So, because evutionists believe in billions of years, they imagine their is a cloud of comets in waiting somewhere in our distant galaxy. They imagine a passing suns gravity occasionally throws a few more comets out into orbit. There is no evidence of this... It's called a 'rescue device'... is a way of explaining away the evidence so they can keep believing in millions of years.


I suspect you aren't interested in other branches of science that contradict your beliefs, but genetics is another example. Evolutionists create rescue device explanations to explain away the evidence of a genome that is rapidly deteriorating. ( multiplicative model, synergistic epistasis, additive model)

But mostly what he seems unaware of is the theological problems it creates to the gospel. And.... what drives me on this issue is that it has lead millions of kids in Christian homes to reject the authority of God's word. If you can't believe what the Bible seems to plainly state, then why believe in the flood? Why believe that Mary was a virgin why believe in the resurrection maybe it is just all all allegorical? It was about 10 years ago a very large survey was done of thousands of kids who had grown up in Christian homes (PEW research on reasons some denominations have reduced attence)but no longer attending church. Many reasons were given but one common theme was that they received for answers to our Origins from parents and from church leaders. Satan has attacked the church the ... body of Christ by getting people to doubt the foundation to the gospel found in the first 11 books of Genesis

 

[iouae]

And the evidence for that is where?

Clovis culture is modern men doing modern things to modern creatures, like killing mastodons. Therefore I believe they were sons of Adam, but pre-flood. So C14 MUST be wrong. I don't have to find more evidence because I believe Adam was created 6000 years ago. And there is tons of evidence of C14 being wrong.

 

[iouae]

Sorry that is not your quote but it is a quote from the article that you cited.


Iouae... The problem this guy seems to admit to in the article is that he places a higher value in secular opinions than God's Word. He seems unaware that science supports the truth of Scripture and the young earth.

He is a geologist and a YEC yet he finds evidence for the earth looking older than 6000 years, against his beliefs.

Here is an example... comets can't last millions of years. They lose mass every time they pass by the Sun, and they 'burn out. It's simple... comets support a young creation. So, because evutionists believe in billions of years, they imagine their is a cloud of comets in waiting somewhere in our distant galaxy. They imagine a passing suns gravity occasionally throws a few more comets out into orbit. There is no evidence of this... It's called a 'rescue device'... is a way of explaining away the evidence so they can keep believing in millions of years.

The galaxy is continually throwing out stuff, and due to gravity, attracting stuff. There are many ways comets could form.

And when they look through telescopes, they see galaxies colliding. Every stage of galaxy collision is out there, with the final stage being black holes, or two black holes spinning together. The evidence for a very old galaxy is a trip to some stargazing platform away. Or a library with a good cosmology book, with Hubble photographs from deep space.

I suspect you aren't interested in other branches of science that contradict your beliefs,

That is true that I am biased, but my mind is still open because I respect science

but genetics is another example. Evolutionists create rescue device explanations to explain away the evidence of a genome that is rapidly deteriorating. ( multiplicative model, synergistic epistasis, additive model)

The genome is just fine. If it were not, then the fantastic, vibrant wonderful life we see around us would be extinct. Instead they are all doing just fine with their DNA, as are you.

But mostly what he seems unaware of is the theological problems it creates to the gospel. And.... what drives me on this issue is that it has lead millions of kids in Christian homes to reject the authority of God's word. If you can't believe what the Bible seems to plainly state, then why believe in the flood? Why believe that Mary was a virgin why believe in the resurrection maybe it is just all all allegorical? It was about 10 years ago a very large survey was done of thousands of kids who had grown up in Christian homes (PEW research on reasons some denominations have reduced attence)but no longer attending church. Many reasons were given but one common theme was that they received for answers to our Origins from parents and from church leaders. Satan has attacked the church the ... body of Christ by getting people to doubt the foundation to the gospel found in the first 11 books of Genesis

My belief is that the Bible nowhere gives the age of the universe. So I just take whichever date scientists suggest. The earth BECAME without form and void, and after that, in 6 days, God made the Holocene fauna and flora. So kids can believe science, and the Bible. I believe YEC is poisoning religious belief in science-savvy kids of today.