The Fossil Record
Archbishop Ussher once famously calculated that the world was created on October 3, 4004 B.C. Most modern geologists believe that multicellular life appeared on earth some 550 million years ago. Obviously, both cannot be right. At least one is seriously in error. But which one is it?
For the Christian, the implications of the question can be profoundly disturbing. If science is right, then Scripture might be in error. We would be left with a book written by fallible human beings, sincere, perhaps, but limited by their culture and environment. Our faith would have little left on which to stand.
When faced with an apparent contradiction between science and Scripture, we must reexamine our understanding of each. Are we interpreting Scripture correctly? Have we interpreted the scientific evidence correctly? God is infallible, but we are not. When a problem like this arises, the fault most likely lies with us, not with God. We need the humility to acknowledge our own limitations.
So, then, does the Bible really teach that the world was created in 4004 B.C.? Can science really prove that life on earth is hundreds of millions of years old?
Scientists like to think that their conclusions are beyond question, at least as far as the theory of evolution is concerned. And yet so much of Darwinism is based on circumstantial evidence and circular reasoning that no Christian should automatically think that everything that a scientist says is necessarily true. The dating of the fossil record, in particular, is very much open to question. The 550 million years old figure was arrived at by calculating the rate of sedimentation and then deducing from that the length of time it must have taken for the various strata of sedimentary rock to have been laid down. But this calculation is based on an assumption, and the assumption is almost certainly false. The assumption is that sedimentation has always occurred at a uniform rate. Ironically, the problem with that assumption is the fossils themselves. In order for fossils to have been formed, the organisms had to have been buried quickly, in water, as in a massive flood. The very existence of the fossils points to a geological catastrophe, and the earth, in fact, is full of evidence of violent upheaval. In order to create fossils, each layer of sedimentary rock had to have been laid down in days and weeks, not hundreds of millions of years. In light of the evidence, traditional dating of the fossil record collapses.
But what about the age of the earth itself? We shall come to that in our next blog post.
Archbishop Ussher once famously calculated that the world was created on October 3, 4004 B.C. Most modern geologists...
ReplyDeleteFirst problem.
It's not just geology.
To accept that the Earth is 6000 years old, you must reject all the physical sciences.
ALL OF THEM.
Plus you have to reject other subjects too.
(eg. Archeology)
The Earth is old. The Universe is old. Any branch of the sciences will tell you that.
If science is right, then Scripture might be in error. We would be left with a book written by fallible human beings, sincere, perhaps, but limited by their culture and environment.
Any religion faces the same problem.
Are we interpreting Scripture correctly? Have we interpreted the scientific evidence correctly? God is infallible, but we are not. When a problem like this arises, the fault most likely lies with us, not with God.
Ah, the gift that keeps on giving.
Are we interpreting The Star Wars Franchise correctly? Have we interpreted the scientific evidence correctly? Yoda is infallible, but we are not. When a problem like this arises, the fault most likely lies with us, not with Yoda.
Are we interpreting the goat entrails correctly? Have we interpreted the scientific evidence correctly? Bast is infallible, but we are not. When a problem like this arises, the fault most likely lies with us, not with Bast.
Scientists like to think that their conclusions are beyond question...
Nonsense. All science is tentative.
Yet there are things that science is very confident about. One of those things is the age of the Earth.
It's old.
Multiple, independent lines of evidence tell us so.
...at least as far as the theory of evolution is concerned.
Nope. It's not just biology. That's the least of your troubles.
And yet so much of Darwinism...
Nope. The word you are looking for is "science".
Say it with me slowly.
S.C.I.E.N.C.E.
...is based on circumstantial evidence and circular reasoning...
Not according to the scientists that provide you with your cell-phones, polyester fabrics, nuclear power and antibiotics.
Ninth Commandment, remember?
...that no Christian should automatically think that everything that a scientist says is necessarily true.
Well, duh! No scientist demands such a thing.
Stop creating strawmen.
The dating of the fossil record, in particular, is very much open to question.
You don't get this.
It's not just fossils.
We know the Earth is older that 6000 years because of a vast variety of multiple, independent lines of evidence covering a wide variety of separate scientific disciplines.
The 550 million years old figure was arrived at by calculating the rate of sedimentation...
Oh? Was that how they figured it out?
Are you sure about that?
In order for fossils to have been formed, the organisms had to have been buried quickly, in water, as in a massive flood.
So after all the exchanges that we've had, you can't thing of any other ways? Really?
Try a little harder.
The internet is not your friend.
Stop making things up.
Tell the real story.
The very existence of the fossils points to a geological catastrophe, and the earth, in fact, is full of evidence of violent upheaval.
No.
We've already covered this.
In order to create fossils, each layer of sedimentary rock had to have been laid down in days and weeks...
Arg! Teh stoopid. It burns!!!
In light of the evidence, traditional dating of the fossil record collapses.
Not according to the scientists.
(shrug)