The Great Creationist Fossil Failure

Ignorance is not evidence, nor is religious belief.

Not all interpretations are of equal value.Some, when supported by most or all of the available data are quite valuable and generally can add to new knowledge by making accurate predictions. In science, these are called theories.Other interpretations that are contradicted by most or all of the available data are worthless except as thought exercises or models to test assumptions. But creationists aren't using their interpretations as thought exercises or models to test assumptions, they are trying to fit the real world evidence into a biblical framework--and it doesn't fit. If you look upthread a good many of your posts consist of diversions from the topic we are dealing with.

That's one problem we have in debating you on this site.I did half my Ph.D. work in the fields of fossil man and osteology and I have handled casts of most of the important finds up until about 1980. I have kept up with a decent amount of the literature since then. I know a lot about the subject.The problem: you don't.You have convictions and opinions, but not the scientific background to debate the issues adequately or to support your convictions and opinions. You don't do your research and homework, and then you complain that we are using terms you don't understand. And to make matters worse, you just deny or "reinterpret" anything we present that does not fit your opinions, no matter how much it contradicts the real-world evidence.You're doing religious apologetics, not science.

Or, those strata were laid down over millions to nearly billions of years by water in various places at various times.That's what the evidence shows. It is only your belief that leads you to other interpretations that are not supported by the evidence--and in fact, that are completely disproved by the evidence. Or, those billions of dead things buried in layers of sediment... are evidence for parts of the Earth being under water at various times in the past. There is nothing in the evidence that suggests those dead things were buried in a short time, but a huge body of evidence that shows both long time periods and change over time for those dead things.["Dead things." Is that a new technical term for fossils?]If you want to talk about fairness, it would behoove you to examine your own posts and interpretations.You start with belief and then do your best to fit the evidence into that belief. When it clearly doesn't fit, you don't question your beliefs, but try to fudge and manipulate and ignore the evidence to make it fit.When that doesn't work you do anything you can to avoid the facts of the real world, so that you can maintain your beliefs.That leads to some amazing mental and verbal gyrations that Olympic athletes would be proud of--but which scientists are not impressed by.Truly, if you had evidence for your claims you would be awarded a Nobel prize--a special one would be created as there is no prize for this category. But you don't have evidence--only belief.

Right.The correct thread is one I proposed months back, and to which no creationist has yet contributed:EvC Forum: Assumptions involved in scientific datingCare to try your luck?

As has been pointed out, humans came along about 250 million years after the period you're discussing. All your wishin' and hopin' isn't going to change that.

Sorry, your oopsies are nonsense.First, to have humans traipsing around some 250+ million years ago would mean that they were present in all time periods since. The evidence shows that's not the case.Second, the fossil record shows a pretty good progression from early primates to modern humans over the last 60 or so million years.But what you would ask us to believe is that these huge masses of evidence are all wrong because of a few dubious finds. That's pretty silly.

Not so: DNA evidence shows something more like this:

The caption for the map I posted:

Genetic analyses indicate that there were three distinct waves of prehistoric migrants from Asia to North America. Y-DNA haplogroups are indicated by blue lines, while mitochondrial DNA is indicated by the yellow lines. (Note: Since this map was published in 2008, the M3 mutation has been grouped under the larger haplogroup Q. (So, Q-M3.))
Map by National Geographic Society

​

Tracing Ancient Migration through Language – National Geographic Education Blog

In other words, those lines represent haplogroups...

Biblical scholars place the flood about 4,350 years ago, but since there is no evidence for a flood at that time creationists keep searching farther and farther back, looking for anything that might fit.A lot of creationists, our own missing Faith included, place the flood back at the KT or PT boundaries for the simple reason that they can't find evidence that isn't easily refuted for anything more recent.The fact that they then have to pretend humans were around 60 or 250 million years ago seems to be an easy problem for them to overcome. They generally mumble something about the dating being wrong somehow (but of course they can't provide any evidence for how) and proceed merrily on their way, ignoring mountains of evidence that shows them to be wrong.Creation "science" as usual, eh?

If you look at the DNA evidence it is clear that humans originated in Africa. The mixture of Neanderthal DNA is another clue.And the "map with arrows" reflects that evidence.Better stay away from those creationist websites--they're lying to you!

They're lying to you.But if you want to discuss the issue, I started a thread just for that late last summer. Bring the problems with radiometric dating to that thread.

Massive Genetic Study Supports "Out of Africa" Theory
John Roach
for National Geographic News
February 21, 2008http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...21-human-genetics.html

A massive new study of human genetic diversity reveals surprising insights into our species' evolution and migrationsincluding support for the theory that the first modern humans originated in Africascientists said today.

​

Researchers compared 650,000 genetic markers in nearly a thousand individuals from 51 populations around the globean unprecedented level of detail for a human genetic study.

​

"You get less and less variation the further you go from Africa," said Marcus Feldman, an evolutionary biologist at Stanford University in California and a study co-author.

​

Such a pattern fits the theory that the first modern humans settled the world in stepping-stone fashion after leaving Africa less than 100,000 years ago.

​

As each small group of people broke away to found a new region, it took only a sample of the parent population's genetic diversity.

​

"If you keep sampling like that, then mathematically you must lose variation," Feldman explained.

​

More

Here is another map, this one mtDNA: This clearly shows L0 and L1 in Africa, with everything else being descended from those two haplogroups.

That's pretty definitive evidence for modern humans originating in Africa. And they could have caught a local Metro bus for the journey. That's just about as likely as your scenario.You are ignoring a lot of evidence and making up increasingly unlikely "what ifs" to support your a priori religious beliefs. That's not doing science.