Neanderthals, Original Sin, and the fossil record

It has been pointed out to r_speir that Neanderthals were dying long before A&E. I’d take it farther. Every fossil of a whole organism that we’ve ever seen is a death. That includes trilobites, clams, and even all the tiny shells of single-celled protists that make up the vast layers of limestone and chalk.

But perhaps r_spier does not accept that these happened before the Flood …

Prove it. Just for argument’s sake, let’s say the carbon dating of Neanderthals is correct at ~30,000 years ago. How long were Adam and Eve in the Garden? The Bible says Eve was mother all living (humans, of course). So prove your point. How do you know that Eve did not predate Neanderthals?

No, you prove it. Let’s choose a clearer case. Limestone from the Paleozoic, formed of the shells of dead coral, clams, and foraminifera. Dead, every one of them. No deaths, no limestone. Every pound of that limestone contains the remains of billions of dead animals. Did Eve live in the early Paleozoic (limestone is known from the Cambrian)? Did the forams and clams and coral pick up death from A&E’s Original Sin, way back then?

6 Likes

You made this statement as if fact

I will let you back it up before I comment on “dead organisms” in the fossil record.

How convenient for you. I was assuming you set A&E at 6-10,000 years before present. Neanderthals go back about 400,000 years (more actually). Fine I’ll let you put A&E back then. Now how about deaths that led to limestone?

2 Likes

The oldest Denisovans also date to 400,000 years old, leading to the speculation that Neanderthals and Denisovans split about 500,000 years ago. That makes mother Eve even older.

I just found this preprint:

How are you dating the limestone? (I actually already know and have argued elsewhere about the faulty, improper, and failed approach)…but I will let you remind me anyway.

Actually, you have not argued. You have made claims and then failed to articulate them sufficiently that they can be discussed. When pressed, you bail.

1 Like

You don’t argue your side either. All you do is say “Here we see that this sedimentary rock is millions of years old based on volcanic ash or magma intrusions.” So I simply argue back, “No, you can’t use radioactive material from a completely different location in the crust or mantle of the planet to date sedimentary rock.”

Then our arguments go to the next level. You say I am wrong. And I simply say, No, you are wrong.

But it’s not a completely different location. It’s above the sedimentary rock in question. I think it may be your claim that the rock crystallized before being intruded; but that makes no sense. The intrusions were magma before they were intruded and they crystallized in place. You have been unable to explain how any of this supposed contamination or xenocrysts can produce a coherent picture of dating, much less how whole strata can be composed of contaminated or xenolithic pieces.

And I have told you that it does not matter if the igneous finds are above, below, or alongside the sedimentary levels. All are contaminated at least microscopically and you will never obtain a clean sample.

Meaning, that old dates will always be returned in your analysis. Your approach is completely faulty and without scientific merit.

All of this presupposes common descent which neither I believe, nor have to believe. Neither do many scientists believe in common descent and they are well-able to do serious investigative research. Remove the common descent from your argument and you are simply left with an idea like this

In Eve’s womb were nations just like in Rebekah’s womb were the nations borne out of Esau and Jacob.
23 The Lord said to her,

“Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.”

24 When the time came for her to give birth, there were twin boys in her womb. 25 The first to come out was red, and his whole body was like a hairy garment; so they named him Esau.[d] 26 After this, his brother came out, with his hand grasping Esau’s heel; so he was named Jacob.[e] Isaac was sixty years old when Rebekah gave birth to them.

Yes, that’s what you have claimed. But you have never explained how that would happen, how it would give consistent results, and how you know (i.e. evidence) there’s such universal contamination.

Name one. Are you perhaps stretching the definition of “scientist”, “many”, or both?

OK, so we are dealing with arguments that all the dating of rocks is wrong, and I have to talk you out of that, and there is no common descent, and I have to talk you out of that as well. I know that by the rules of this site I have to be oh-so-cheerful and oh-so-Peaceful and oh-so-friendly and charm you out of your conclusions. But I’ll just agree to disagree with you, and take my stand with all the geologists in ordinary geology departments, all the astronomers in ordinary astronomy departments, and all the biologists I know, who think that common descent is a firm conclusion. And mostly I’ll post and comment elsewhere, leaving you to crow about how you won.

Great! You and I have come to terms. I like that.

And there you go, bailing again.

I consider the Discovery Institute to be engaging in scientific investigations. Just because you do not agree does not mean you are right.

The Discovery Institute isn’t a scientist, so you have not managed to name one so far. There are a couple of scientists working for the DI, if you use the term loosely enough. But even if you managed to name them, it wouldn’t be “many”. And some of them even accept common descent.

I will let them know that @John_Harshman from Peaceful Science thinks that “only 2 of you are worthy scientists”. I’m sure they will be very concerned and will get immediately about the business of correcting the error. :slight_smile:

Speaking of correcting a blatant error, when are you going to give your YLC explanation of how angular unconformities with fossils in both upper and lower strata were produced? Or does that fall into the huge category “to Creationists unanswerable questions are invisible”?