Creationists Explain Things: “Fossil Dating”


Please note that these are all direct quotes from creationists taken from the many public domain creation/evolution debates. I have collected these for years, and many of the debate sites no longer exist. Even so, I wager that I could replace them today without too much trouble. I have arranged them some, but I have not altered original spelling or grammar. GH Dating Fossils

“Although personally, evolution is a load of crock. I think the fossil records speak for themselves in that area. As does logic. If you truly beleive that all species are evolving, and changing and that the earth is a billions of years old, explain to me why all of the species alive today can be found in the fossil record from millions of years ago. Fossils are just creatures that died in the flood and were buried. All the sediment deposits and massive lava flows and oil deposits are the remnants of a tremendous global cataclysm. It’s that simple and that’s all you need to explain it. It isn’t complicated.”

“As to the “sorting” of organisms in the layers, well, that’s an illusion too, and there are many possible non-evolutionary explanations for it. If they’re arranged from “simple” to “complex”, then you have a very simple explanation. More complex creatures are smarter and faster than simpler ones. For example, we find lots of clams in the fossil record, down near the bottom a lot of times. Well, last time I checked, clams don’t run very fast, and they aren’t very bright, and they don’t float. They’re going to get caught on the bottom. “

“It is possible that the flood produced what appears to be “MILLIONS OF YEARS” worth of sedimentation in only a few months. Runoff from the flood could have cause many of the large canyon areas we see today (remember the sediments would have still been relatively soft during the runoff period).”

“As for dating fossils, these assumptions become key. C-14 dating is what has always been used to date fossils that are presumed to have once lived. The other isotopes previously stated by … , are not used to date remains of what has once lived. The ice core dating does two things. It demonstrates the fluctuation in carbon levels over time. It also is dependent on an assumption of age. “

“Radioactive dating has been proved not to work since recently deposited lava flows were dated at millions of years.. It’s all smoke and mirrors built on a lot of assumptions and guesswork. It just looks good because so many people have worked on it. You can make anything look good if you work hard enough at it. If you tell a lie long enough and loud enough, people will believe it no matter how big the lie is. That’s what evolution is, the ultimate lie, and a lie that is dragging people to hell every day. It MUST be fought against. One possible explanation is that the rapid aging of the earth is due to relativistic time dilation (or contraction, in this case), which suggests that the earth, along with galaxies in genearl, suddenly started slowing their rate of travel in the expanding universe in relatively recent times. “

“BTW, nothing about this subject intimidates me. I am well educated too.”



Here’s a couple of gems I’ve collected:

“I feel sorry for evolutionists, you’re all blinded by the TRUTH!

“How do you explain the Carribean Explosion?”

“No Dark, I’m not buying into your analorgy”


Sometimes I feel bad. It’s kind of like making fun of the mentlly disabled. It’s really not fair.

Those are good ones. A fellow that goes by the name of “winace” has a website of creationist quotes, but I seem to have lost the URL.

Gary et al., that URL (the “Fundies Say the Darndest Things” site) is here:

Two guys go into a movie. One says that the movie was terrible, the plot was thin, the acting lacking. The other man like the movie. Says it was a poignet tale of life.

Question-which one is right. It is as though they were at two separate events. Perception is key. Perhaps most of the creation evolution debate is really people with different perceptions about the same event, and not two separate events after all.

Suppose two guys look though a telescope at a supernova remnant. One takes careful measurements and determines the SNR is 168,000 ly’s away. He publishes his data in peer reviewed journals and many astronomers confirms his conclusion. The Hubble is turned onto the SNR and confirms the conclusion. It’s noted that the light carries the spectral signatures of short half lived elements/isotopes decay curves, and those curves match perfectly data gathered in terrestrial labs and match thereotical prediction to one part in a thousand. Thus the light has not change velocity during transit giving the objects age of 168,000.

So without discussing evo, or the Big Bang, or radiometric dating, we can conclude with know the universe is older than Young Earth Creationist time tables allow.

The other guy covers his eyes and say’s “That object does not exist.…neener neener neener”

Question: Which one is right?

Anyone who uses the devastating “neener neener neerer” rhetorical device gets my vote for president.

From Jim Anderson’s link above:

(the) Pat Robertson Wrote:

Scientists have shown that electrical current is generated by the human brain. According to at least one source I read, this current takes on the transmission qualities of radio signals. This explains, in some measure, why people who are very close often know what each other is thinking without spoken words being exchanged. For this reason, it is possible that Satan knows at least a little bit about what we are thinking.

A few others:

Vinnie accused me of circular reasoning in concluding that the Bible is a work of non-fiction. My reasoning is not at all circular, I felt that I was pretty clear. First, I presume the verity of the Biblical writers. Second, the writers claim that they were inspired by God and they are recording the truth. Conclusion, the Bible is a work of non-fiction. - RobertLW, Internet Infidels

HAHAHA! I dont depend on logic. You do, and that is why people use it to try and prove God to you. You could prove God did not exist and still not waiver me. - Acolyte, ChristianForums

Umm..may I say I am not even going to actually study evolution. - Grand Moff Nicodemus Fett, Star Wars TCG Board

I have to admitt to not looking at this particular fossil and studying it as much as I should to be commenting on it. I did do a pretty close look at it in a museum one time and it looked a little fake to me at the time. - Jim Larmore, Internet Infidels

“relativistic time dilation (or contraction, in this case)”

Yeah that’s certainly a lot simpler and more believable than “the Earth is just old, dude.”

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Gary Hurd published on April 25, 2004 10:14 PM.

Italy Removes Evolution from Curricula was the previous entry in this blog.

Creationists Explain Things: Logic and Sweet Reason is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter