The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

Are you ignoring, or do you just not understand, all the replies that have shown that this is not what he is saying at all.

"The Discovery Institute has used unauthorized, selective quotations from my book In Search of Deep Time to support their outdated, mistaken views."

- Henry Gee

Not what who is saying, JC or Gee?

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

Er, I think that is the point JC was making - Gee continues to hold the belief in evolution, but accepts the fossil record can't be used to support it.

No, Wolfsbane, he doesn't. I swear you're making this up.

Gee both believes in evolutionary theory and that the fossil evidence that exists supports it. He is saying that the fossil evidence is too insubstantial to support certain specific assumptions about the chains of ancestry and descent - assumptions based on a human-centric perspective of nature - not that the overall fossil record doesn't support evolutionary theory.

And remember also that this is his opinion, not actual evidence. Why are you so quick to seize on his informed opinion on this (even though you demonstrably don't get what he's saying), while rejecting out of hand his equally informed opinion on the validity of evolutionary theory? It just shows how slim the pickings are for you guys that you have to misrepresent noted authorities in order to try and create the impression of some kind of pseudo-scientific justification for your misguided notions.

I think maybe you should go and read up on what evolution actually is before you say any more, you're only embarrassing yourself.

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

....sorry to disappoint you....but here is another very pertinent quote from Dr Henry Gee....

Is this another example of your 'christian' 'honesty' J C?

How can you look at yourself in the mirror, deliberately quoting out-of-context statements by somebody who has explicitly denounced the use of his work for such purposes.

Does this rank misrepresentation of an honourable man whose knowledge far exceeds your own not bother you in the least?

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not what who is saying, JC or Gee?

...but accepts the fossil record can't be used to support it.

This bit, in reference to Dr Gee clearly.

It is meerly what what you wish he was saying, which is not the same thing at all.

The conventional portrait of ... the history of life ... tends to be one of lines of ancestors and descendants. We concentrate on the events leading to modern humanity, ignoring or playing down
the evolution of other animals; we prune away all branches in the tree of life except the one leading to ourselves.

... Because we see evolution in terms of a linear chain of ancestry
and descent, we tend to ignore the possibility that some of these ancestors might instead have been side−branches; collateral cousins rather than direct ancestors. The conventional linear view easily becomes a story in which features of humanity are acquired in a sequence that can be discerned retrospectively; first an upright stance, then a bigger brain, then the invention of toolmaking and so on, with ourselves as the inevitable consequence."

The quoted text follows immediate from this. Clearly Gee is not saying that
evolution is a pre−existing story, but the popular and non−paleontological views of human evolution is. And he is right − these ideas took a long time to overcome. Stephen Jay Gould discusses this nicely in his essay "Evolution by Walking" in _Dinosaur in a Haystack_ 1996 (see
also the essay in that book "Lucy on the earth in stasis").

Gee is able to distinguish between that which is fact, such as evolution, and the various stories we tell, for all kinds of social or religious reasons, about those facts. He then goes on to discuss how we can infer, without doubt, based on shared properties, that he and his cat Fred have a
common ancestor, but that "we cannot hope to find her [the common ancestor] as a fossil; or if we were to find her, we could never know for certain that we had done so [found the common ancestor − of course we know we have found *a* fossil]".

John S. Wilkins

Flamed Diving

Deuteronomy 5:20

Galvasean

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Deuteronomy 5:20

Elaborate please? Some of us heathens don't speak Bible code.

Flamed Diving

Galvasean wrote: »

Elaborate please? Some of us heathens don't speak Bible code.

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/5-20.htm

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

Er, I think that is the point JC was making - Gee continues to hold the belief in evolution, but accepts the fossil record can't be used to support it.

Rubbish. Where'd you get that idea? Gaps in a data set don't make it "not evidence". That makes no sense at all. The fossil record simply doesn't support certain assumed paths through ancestry. What it does support fully is the theory of evolution. It will stand as fully valid evidence for that unless in contradicts the theory.

J C

Nodin wrote: »

.....The Good Dr is not a creationist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Gee....

(Prof Gould is) late and great perhaps, but most certainly not a creationist....


.......Furthermore, now I've pointed out this fact, with sources, any further use of them after this post lays you open to accusations of deliberate dishonesty.

....I am quoting both Dr Gee and Prof Gould BECAUSE they are/were leading Evolutionists.
Look, any Creationist will tell you the many logical and scientific problems that Evolution has....but you could validly then say that "Creationists would say that, wouln't they??"!!!!

....however, when LEADING EVOLUTIONISTS frankly admit the serious problems that Evolution has, it becomes denial on your part when you continue to deny that these issues exist!!!!:eek::D:)

....and, as for 'quote mining'...I can confirm that the 'mine' is very deep with massive 'reserves' of devastating quotes!!!!!!;):D

J C

rockbeer wrote: »

Gee both believes in evolutionary theory and that the fossil evidence that exists supports it. He is saying that the fossil evidence is too insubstantial to support certain specific assumptions about the chains of ancestry and descent - assumptions based on a human-centric perspective of nature - not that the overall fossil record doesn't support evolutionary theory.

......but Dr Gee is making much GREATER criticism of Evolutionary Theory, than any supposed 'human-centric' perspective that it may have, (and that you appear to believe is his only criticism)!!!!

J C wrote:

"Dinosaurs are fossils, and, like all fossils, they are isolated tableaux illuminating the measureless corridor of Deep Time. To recall what I said in chapter 1, no fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way, whether we are talking about the extinction of the dinosaurs, or chains of ancestry and descent. Everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact." In Search of Deep Time (2001) p.113

I like Dr Gee's honest admission that "no fossil is buried with its birth certificate".....and "everything we think we know about the causal relations of events in Deep Time has been invented by us, after the fact"

Nodin

J C wrote: »

....I am quoting both Dr Gee and Prof Gould BECAUSE they are/were leading Evolutionists.
Look, any Creationist will tell you the many logical and scientific problems that Evolution has....but you could validly then say that "Creationists would say that, wouln't they??"!!!!

....however, when LEADING EVOLUTIONISTS frankly admit the serious problems that Evolution has..........

Thats not what they're saying at all. They're speaking of very specific lines of thought and theories. You, however, are trying to portray them as saying theres a problem with the whole concept. Thus you are quoting them out of context.

J C wrote: »

....
......but Dr Gee is making much GREATER criticism ..........

Coming out with that again, without addressing Message 13621 by Marco_Polo is being obtuse. Please address his post and the quote by Dr Gee.
link

rockbeer

J C wrote: »

....I am quoting both Dr Gee and Prof Gould BECAUSE they are/were leading Evolutionists.

To support your case you are quoting a man who has explicitly denounced the use of his work for such purposes. I will keep reminding you of this until you acknowledge it, and explain how such dishonest behaviour fits into your religious and moral framework.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

......but Dr Gee is making much GREATER criticism of Evolutionary Theory, than any supposed 'human-centric' perspective that it may have, (and that you appear to believe is his only criticism)!!!!

It is quite clear that this is not at all the point that he is making. He is cautioning against the assembly of specific evolutionary relationships using the fossil record alone. That is not questioning the theory of evolution or "spontaneous evolution", or whatever you'd like to label it.

You've presented the quote as something other than it was intended, as has been made very clear by Dr. Gee himself in reference to that quote and others.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

...Gee is able to distinguish between that which is fact, such as evolution, and the various stories we tell, for all kinds of social or religious reasons, about those facts. He then goes on to discuss how we can infer, without doubt, based on shared properties, that he and his cat Fred have a common ancestor, but that "we cannot hope to find her [the common ancestor] as a fossil; or if we were to find her, we could never know for certain that we had done so [found the common ancestor − of course we know we have found *a* fossil]".
.

......Ok I obviously disagree with Dr Gee that 'big picture' Evolution is a 'fact'.....but I agree with you/him when you admit that there are many stories told about Evolution....and I also agree that a fossil is simply *a* fossil !!!!!:):D

....when it comes to the 'fact' of evolution we all agree that 'micro-evolution' within Kinds is a 'fact'.....but I know that 'macro-evolution' is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

...and for those of you that are inclined to claim that 'macro-evolution' is just an accumulation of 'micro-mutations'....can I refer you to the following quote by Richard Goldschmidt, Late Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley ... which highlights the FUNDAMENTAL difference between micro and macro evolution:-

"Microevolution within the species proceeds by accumulation of micromutations and occupation of the available ecological niches by the preadapted mutants. Microevolution, especially geographic variation, adapts the species to the different conditions existing in the available range of distribution. Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The genetical process which is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new genetic system. The theory of genes and of the accumulation of micromutants by selection has to be ruled out of this picture." The Material Basis of Evolution (1982) p.396

wolfsbane

rockbeer wrote: »

To support your case you are quoting a man who has explicitly denounced the use of his work for such purposes. I will keep reminding you of this until you acknowledge it, and explain how such dishonest behaviour fits into your religious and moral framework.

Sure Gee doesn't like evolution being exposed by his comments. Certainly he wants us to believe in the Big Picture even if the fossil evidence does not contribute to it. Tough.

We are perfectly entitled to say, as JC did, that the acknowledged absence of fossil evidence to support evolution is a major problem for the theory.

Atomic Horror accepts what Gee says, that the fossil evidence is not a sequential chain, but just dots in the ocean. AH says he can join the dots to give the evolutionary story - but we can join the dots to give the creation story. The picture is all in the mind, a fitting of the evidence into a preconceived narrative.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Rubbish. Where'd you get that idea? Gaps in a data set don't make it "not evidence". That makes no sense at all. The fossil record simply doesn't support certain assumed paths through ancestry. What it does support fully is the theory of evolution. It will stand as fully valid evidence for that unless in contradicts the theory.

Here's a further quote that points to the weight - rather lack of it - of the fossil recrd for evolution:
Gee is able to distinguish between that which is fact, such as evolution, and the various stories we tell, for all kinds of social or religious reasons, about those facts. He then goes on to discuss how we can infer, without doubt, based on shared properties, that he and his cat Fred have a
common ancestor, but that "we cannot hope to find her [the common ancestor] as a fossil; or if we were to find her, we could never know for certain that we had done so [found the common ancestor − of course we know we have found *a* fossil]".

John S. Wilkins

According to you the fossil record supports evolution if it doesn't contradict it. Hardly a good scientific or philosophical precept.

The fossil record is evidence - but both the creationist and evolutionist try to fit it to their models - it does not suggest a model in itself.

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure Gee doesn't like evolution being exposed by his comments. Certainly he wants us to believe in the Big Picture even if the fossil evidence does not contribute to it. Tough.

You are without shame and without integrity.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure Gee doesn't like evolution being exposed by his comments. Certainly he wants us to believe in the Big Picture even if the fossil evidence does not contribute to it. Tough.

We are perfectly entitled to say, as JC did, that the acknowledged absence of fossil evidence to support evolution is a major problem for the theory.

Atomic Horror accepts what Gee says, that the fossil evidence is not a sequential chain, but just dots in the ocean. AH says he can join the dots to give the evolutionary story - but we can join the dots to give the creation story. The picture is all in the mind, a fitting of the evidence into a preconceived narrative.

Yourself and JC can say it as often as you like. But that is not what you are doing now is it?

You are certainly not entitled to do is say that Gee is arguing that fossil evidence is a major problem for the theory evolution, because as has been explained to you multiple times this is not what he is talking about at all.

marco_polo

How is that creationist fossil model coming along by the way. Any hope of a coherent explaination that isn't full of contradictions anytime soon?

More on this point later.

wolfsbane

marco_polo wrote: »

Yourself and JC can say it as often as you like. But that is not what you are doing now is it?

You are certainly not entitled to do is say that Gee is arguing that fossil evidence is a major problem for the theory evolution, because as has been explained to you multiple times this is not what he is talking about at all.

It doesn't matter what he is talking about - in the course of his explanation he displayed this truth about the lack of weight the fossil record has for evolution.

It is sufficient that Gee acknowledged the fossil record does not positively support evolution. Creationists say that makes it a major problem for the theory of evolution.

Flamed Diving

wolfsbane wrote: »

Sure Gee doesn't like evolution being exposed by his comments. Certainly he wants us to believe in the Big Picture even if the fossil evidence does not contribute to it. Tough.

We are perfectly entitled to say, as JC did, that the acknowledged absence of fossil evidence to support evolution is a major problem for the theory.

Atomic Horror accepts what Gee says, that the fossil evidence is not a sequential chain, but just dots in the ocean. AH says he can join the dots to give the evolutionary story - but we can join the dots to give the creation story. The picture is all in the mind, a fitting of the evidence into a preconceived narrative.

How do you explain the evidence offered by the genome. ie. all living things seem to regress to one common ancestor?

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is sufficient that Gee acknowledged the fossil record does not positively support evolution.

He acknowledges no such thing, and no amount of wishful thinking on you part will make it otherwise.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

It is sufficient that Gee acknowledged the fossil record does not positively support evolution.

That's not what he said at all!
Gee merely pointed out that the fossil record is not complete. This does not contradict evolution in any way shape or form.

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

The fossil record is evidence - but both the creationist and evolutionist try to fit it to their models - it does not suggest a model in itself.

On the contrary, a consistent series of fossils in a series of strata which are consistent across thousands of sites worldwide, strongly suggest a consistent reason for them being there. This reason is that they evolved slowly, as the rocks were deposited. It's really quite simple.

Creationists, on the other hand, suggest they were either (a) laid down in order of increasing complexity over a busy six-month period involving a wooden ark and seven vertical miles of rain which has since evaporated to heaven knows where or (b) put there by a Middle Eastern deity to test how strong are the critical faculties of the people who believe he exists.

You're free to choose which scenario is the more likely.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

According to you the fossil record supports evolution if it doesn't contradict it. Hardly a good scientific or philosophical precept.

The fossil record is evidence - but both the creationist and evolutionist try to fit it to their models - it does not suggest a model in itself.

I took the liberty of "question mining" from talk origins. Could you describe to me the creation model that answers some of the following questions?

The extremely good sorting observed. Why didn't at least one dinosaur make it to the high ground with the elephants?

The relative positions of plants and other non-motile life. Yun, 1989, describes beautifully preserved algae from Late Precambrian sediments. Why don't any modern-looking plants appear that low in the geological column?

Why some groups of organisms, such as mollusks, are found in many geologic strata?

Why organisms (such as brachiopods) which are very similar hydrodynamically (all nearly the same size, shape, and weight) are still perfectly sorted?

Why extinct animals which lived in the same niches as present animals didn't survive as well. Why did no pterodons make it to high ground?

How coral reefs hundreds of feet thick and miles long were preserved intact with other fossils below them?

Why small organisms dominate the lower strata, whereas fluid mechanics says they would sink slower and thus end up in upper strata?

Why artifacts such as footprints and burrows are also sorted?

Why no human artifacts are found except in the very uppermost strata?
If, at the time of the Flood, the earth was overpopulated by people with technology for shipbuilding, why were none of their tools or buildings mixed with trilobite or dinosaur fossils?

Why different parts of the same organisms are sorted together. Pollen and spores are found in association with the trunks, leaves, branches, and roots produced by the same plants?

Nodin

J C wrote: »

..........can I refer you to the following quote by Richard Goldschmidt, Late Professor of Zoology at the University of California at Berkeley ... which highlights the FUNDAMENTAL difference between micro and macro evolution:-

And again with the quote mining. That wasn't published in 1982 either.

Heres a far better representation - in context - of what the late Dr was trying to get at.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/people/richard_goldschmidt.html

Wolfsbane wrote:

..........
Sure Gee doesn't like evolution being exposed by his comments.

No, Gee doesn't 'expose' evolution in his comments, which is why he's complaining about their abuse.

Wolfsbane wrote:

It doesn't matter what he is talking about

Yes, it most certainly does. Its rather odd for a Bible reader to start diminishing the role of context in interpretation. Quite dishonest, in fact.

Wolfsbane wrote:

It is sufficient that Gee acknowledged the fossil record does not positively support evolution.

No, he does not.

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

According to you the fossil record supports evolution if it doesn't contradict it. Hardly a good scientific or philosophical precept.

Don't be ridiculous, it makes perfect sense. The fossil record could only stand as both non-evidence and as non-contradiction if it had no bearing on evolution at all. As the fossil record is a record of past life, it is of course highly relevant to evolution. Thus is may support or contradict that theory only. If it fails to contradict, it is support due to it's direct relevance and vice versa. A true and simple dichotomy. The evidence that is present positively supports evolution, and the new fossils discovered fit the model, thus they do not contradict it. I'd have thought that were blindingly obvious and simple. Shall I explain it again?

wolfsbane wrote: »

The fossil record is evidence - but both the creationist and evolutionist try to fit it to their models - it does not suggest a model in itself.

What? This is an astounding misunderstanding of science. We don't try to fit the evidence to the model. That's not science at all. The model must be changed if the evidence does not fit. The fossil record absolutely suggested evolution. As did the variety in the species extant during Darwin's life. The data continues to support the theory.

This is why creationism is not science. There are no conditions that will lead you to dismiss your "hypothesis" as you've decided it must be true before testing. There is no evidence that you will not force into the model by "re-interpretation", or simply dismiss as a mistake.

To return to my scatter plot analogy, you've decided that the data points describe a line. You've found that 90% of the points lie off that line by a significant error, so you've decided that some of the data is an error and recalculated the rest so that it lies exactly upon the line.

And you'd sneer at my "scientific or philosophical precepts"?

AtomicHorror

wolfsbane wrote: »

It doesn't matter what he is talking about - in the course of his explanation he displayed this truth about the lack of weight the fossil record has for evolution.

It is sufficient that Gee acknowledged the fossil record does not positively support evolution. .

He did not say any such thing Wolfsbane, his meaning is quite clear once the context is fully presented. I do hope you're wrong about this God business because I suspect you've rather unrepentantly joined in with J C's "sinning".

I merely think you're happy once again to accept whichever interpretation makes you feel the most comfortable.

AtomicHorror

J C wrote: »

....when it comes to the 'fact' of evolution we all agree that 'micro-evolution' within Kinds is a 'fact'.....but I know that 'macro-evolution' is IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

Let's add that one to the list of questions pending answers from J C, Wolfsbane or any other creationist, shall we?

1. Provide a genetic test for Created Kinds. According to you, the taxa is both real and fundemental, so it should be innately more testable than any element of Linnean taxonomy, which is merely a labelling system.

2. Define "Created Pair" in biological and genetic terms. As with 1, this should be easy.

3. Explain whether you intentionally or unintentionally misquoted Dr. Gee in a context suggesting that he was talking about a topic that he was not actually addressing. Justify whichever choice you made in terms of your morals.

4. Please name some scientists currently engaged in creation research. Preferably provide examples of research papers (not reviews or essays) published in the last two years.

5. Please provide an example of the "downward mixing" that should be visible in the fossil record if it is actually evidence of a turbulent flood. We will accept any organism that should only have emerged in the last 100 million years being found at any dated layer below 400 million years. This would be rather modest mixing in the top 10% of layers, but one irrefutable example will suffice.

6. Please clearly confirm that you have now accepted that either a) Your Designer is inept b) your Designer is disinterested in individual human survival c) irreducible complexity is not evidence of design but of mutation or d) redundancy (and thus new function) can arise by mutation. This is not an arbitrary four-way choice, the logic is explained here.

7. Please provide data confirming the rapid sedimentation/rock formation processes that you describe as occurring during the The Flood. The data may be from any primary source but must be based upon wet lab or field work data, rather than a mathematical model or simulation. Since you describe the process as having taken only a few years, this should be testable.

8. Please provide data demonstrating the mathematical, chemical or biological impossibility of the process of evolution. Whether the process did or did not occur is not relevant to the "possibility". Please confine your data to the process of evolution. Abiogenesis is not a consideration.

J C

marco_polo wrote: »

I took the liberty of "question mining" from talk origins. Could you describe to me the creation model that answers some of the following questions?

I too will give myself a rest ... and give you the answer which AIG gives to such questions:-
Old-earth proponents often argue that if man and dinosaurs lived at the same time, their fossils should be found in the same layers. Since no one has found definitive evidence of human remains in the same layers as dinosaurs (Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic), they say that humans and dinosaurs are separated by millions of years of time and, therefore, didn’t live together. So, old-earth proponents ask a very good question: Why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils, if they lived at the same time?

We find human fossils in layers that most creationists consider post-Flood. Most of these were probably buried after the Flood and after the scattering of humans from Babel. So it is true that human and dinosaur fossils have yet to be found in the same layers, but does that mean that long-age believers are correct?

What Do We Find in the Fossil Record?
The first issue to consider is what we actually find in the fossil record.

~95% of all fossils are shallow marine organisms, such as corals and shellfish.
~95% of the remaining 5% are algae and plants.
~95% of the remaining 0.25% are invertebrates, including insects.
The remaining 0.0125% are vertebrates, mostly fish. (95% of land vertebrates consist of less than one bone, and 95% of mammal fossils are from the Ice Age after the Flood.)1
The number of dinosaur fossils is actually relatively small, compared to other types of creatures. Since the Flood was a marine catastrophe, we would expect marine fossils to be dominant in the fossil record. And that is the case.

Vertebrates are not as common as other types of life-forms. This makes sense of these percentages and helps us understand why vertebrates, including dinosaurs, are so rare and even overwhelmed by marine organisms in the record.

Yet that still does not explain why there are no fossilized humans in Flood sediments.

Were Pre-Flood Humans Completely Obliterated?
In Genesis 6:7 and Genesis 7:23 God says He will “blot out” man from the face of the earth using the Flood. Some have suggested that this phrase means to completely obliterate all evidence of man. However, this is not completely accurate. After a lengthy study, Fouts and Wise make it clear that the Hebrew word hxm (mahâ), translated as “blot out” or “destroy,” can still leave evidence behind. They say,

Although mahâ is properly translated “blot out,” “wipe,” or even “destroy,” it is not to be understood to refer to the complete obliteration of something without evidence remaining. In every Biblical use of mahâ where it is possible to determine the fate of the blotted, wiped, or destroyed, the continued existence of something is terminated, but evidence may indeed remain of the previous existence and/or the blotting event itself. Even the theological consideration of the “blotting out” of sin suggests that evidence usually remains (e.g., consequences, scars, sin nature, etc.).2
In light of this, it is possible that human fossils from the Flood could still exist but just haven’t been found yet.

So, should we find human fossils in layers that contain dinosaur fossils? To answer this further, we need to understand what we actually find in the fossil record, what the likelihood is that humans would have been fossilized, what is unusual about their distribution, and how much Flood sediment there was.

Do Humans Fossilize like Other Creatures?
Fossilization is a rare event, especially of humans who are very mobile. Since the rains of Noah’s Flood took weeks to cover the earth, many people could have made it to boats, grabbed on to floating debris, and so on. Some may have made it to higher ground. Although they wouldn’t have lasted that long and would have eventually perished, they might not fossilize.

In most cases, dead things decompose or get eaten. They just disappear and nothing is left. The 2004 tsunami in Southeast Asia was a shocking reminder of the speed with which water and other forces can eliminate all trace of bodies, even when we know where to look. According to the United Nation’s Office of the Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, nearly 43,000 tsunami victims were never found.3

Even if rare, it would still be possible to fossilize a human body. In fact, we do find fossils of humans, such as Neanderthals, in the post-Flood sediments. So why don’t we find humans in pre-Flood sediments?

One suggestion has been that the human population was relatively small. Let’s see how that possibility bears out.

Were Pre-Flood Humans Few in Number?
Estimates for the pre-Flood population are based on very little information, since Genesis 1 doesn’t give extensive family size or population growth information. We know that Noah was in the tenth generation of his line, and he lived about 1,650 years after creation. Genesis also indicates that in Noah’s lineage children were being born to fathers between the ages of 65 and more than 500 (when Noah bore his three sons).

How many generations were there in other lineages? We don’t know. We know that those in the line from Adam to Noah were living upwards of 900 years each, but we can’t be certain everyone lived that long. How many total children were born? Again, we don’t know. What were the death rates? We simply don’t know.

Despite this lack of information, estimates have ranged from a few hundred thousand to 17 billion people. These estimates are based on various population growth rates and numbers of generations. Recall that Noah was in the tenth generation from Adam, however, so these estimates may be too high.

It seems doubtful that there were many hundreds of millions of people before the Flood. If the world was indeed bad enough for God to judge with a Flood, then people were probably blatantly disobedient to God’s command to be fruitful and fill the earth. Moreover, the Bible says that violence filled the earth, so death rates may have been extraordinarily high.

In light of this, the population of humans in the pre-Flood world could have been as low as hundreds of thousands. Even if we make a generous assumption of 200 million people at the time of the Flood, there would be just over one human fossil per cubic mile of sediment laid down by the Flood!

Were Humans Concentrated in High Density Pockets that Have Not Been Discovered?
Today, humans tend to clump together in groups in towns, villages, and cities. In the same way, people were probably not evenly distributed before the Flood. The first city is recorded in Genesis 4:17, long before the Flood. We know that most of the population today lives within 100 miles (160 km) of the coastline. One report states, “Already nearly two-thirds of humanity—some 3.6 billion people—crowd along a coastline, or live within 150 kilometers of one.”5

This is strong evidence that the pre-Flood civilizations probably were not evenly distributed on the landmass. If man wasn’t evenly distributed, then the pockets of human habitation possibly were buried in places that have not yet been discovered.

Not only is fossilization a rare event, but fossils are also difficult to find. Just consider how much sediment was laid down by the Flood, compared to the area that has actually been exposed for us to explore.

John Woodmorappe’s studies indicate that there are about 168 million cubic miles (700 km3) of Flood sediment. John Morris estimates that there is about 350 million cubic miles of Flood sediment. The latter may be high because the total volume of water on the earth is estimated at about 332.5 million cubic miles, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. But even so, there is a lot of sediment left to sift through. Having such a massive amount of sediment to study is a major reason why we have not found human fossils yet.

So, a small human population and massive amounts of sediment are two prominent factors why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-Flood sediments. It also may simply be that we haven’t found the sediment where humans were living and were buried.

Think about It—Would You Want to Live with Dinosaurs?
Often, people believe that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then they didn’t live at the same time. Actually, all we know for sure is that they weren’t buried together. It is very easy for creatures to live at the same time on earth, but never even cross paths. Have you ever seen a tiger or a panda in the wild? Just because animals are not found together does not mean they do not live in the same world at the same time.

A great example is the coelacanth. Coelacanth fossils are found in marine deposits below dinosaurs and in other marine layers that date about the same age as dinosaurs. It was once thought the coelacanth became extinct about 70 million years ago because their fossils are not found in any deposits higher than this. However, in 1938 living populations were found in the Indian Ocean. It appears that coelacanths were buried with other sea creatures during the Flood—as we would expect. The example of the coelacanth shows that animals are not necessarily buried in the same place as other animals from different environments. We don’t find human bones buried with coelacanths, either, but we live together today, and people are enjoying them for dinner in some parts of the world.

Coelacanths aren’t the only example. We find many examples like this, even with creatures that did not live in the sea. One popular example is the Wollemi Pine, which was fossilized in Jurassic deposits, supposedly 150 million years ago. However, we find these trees living today. Another great living fossil is the Ginkgo tree, which supposedly thrived 240 million years ago, prior to the dinosaurs. Yet, they are not found in layers with dinosaurs or post-Flood humans, even though they exist today. The list of “living fossils” goes on. Because animals and plants aren’t buried together, it is no indication that things didn’t live together.

In fact, based on human nature, we can assume that humans probably chose not to live in the same place with dinosaurs. So, the real issue is what happened to the local environment where humans lived.

What Can We Conclude?
If human and dinosaur bones are ever found in the same layers, it would be a fascinating find to both creationists and evolutionists. Those who hold a biblical view of history wouldn’t be surprised but would consider several logical possibilities, such as human parties invading dinosaur lands for sport or for food, or merely humans and dinosaurs being washed up and buried together.

Evolutionists, on the other hand, who believe the geologic layers represent millions of years of time, would have a real challenge. In the old-earth view, man isn’t supposed to be the same age as dinosaurs. Yet we can be sure that this finding would not overturn their starting assumptions—they would simply try to develop a hypothesis consistent with their preconceived view of history. For example, they might search for the possibility that the fossils were moved and redeposited.

So, ultimately, the debate is not about the evidence itself—where we find human fossils and dinosaur fossils. Nobody was there to actually observe humans and dinosaurs living together. We are forced to reconstruct that history based on our existing assumptions about time and history, as well as our limited fossil evidence from the rocks.

As biblical creationists, we don’t require that human and dinosaur fossils be found in the same layers. Whether they are found or not, does not affect the biblical view of history.