Even if one was so stubborn as to refuse to question the assertions of the geological deep-time advocates, there yet exists another form of fossil evidence that should unrelentingly force us to seek adequate explanations. Take, for instance, a few select dinosaur fossils. While the mainstream insists that the dinosaurs died off some 65 million years ago, new fossil finds force us to reconsider that. The first of these occurred in the early 2000s, involving a particularly large tyrannosaurus femur which had to be broken into two pieces for transport, and with it the standard paradigm began to tremble…
Time and again, as we look to the fossils found throughout the strata of the world, we should be amazed by many obvious examples of anomalies that exist in plain sight. For instance, though we are told of evolution’s endless march towards perfection, why is it that so many “ancient” fossil forms exist that are identical to modern forms? There are a staggering number of worms, mollusks, and arthropods preserved around the world that are essentially indistinguishable from their modern descendants, and similarly, we find a vast number of more complex animals today that are virtually identical to their fossil forebears.
What are we to make of fossils that seemingly contradict the standard model, existing in layers they are not supposed to? This is a frequent occurrence, 1 and as with much else, it is typically explained away in kind. For some, such as those consisting of ancient fossils occurring in younger sediment, the mainstream attests that this is simply a case of disturbance, whereby the ancient fossils have been reworked into the younger strata, incorporated over time within those fresh sediments. One must question though what degree of luck it would require for the rock surrounding an ancient fossil to be largely eroded away, only to have a new wave of deposition occur just in time to preserve the fossil therein…
Like the doctrines of the evolution paradigm, the notion of geological deep-time is promoted by mainstream science as largely inscrutable fact, a truth vindicated through the observational and experimental diligence of dedicated scientists. In reality, their conclusions are no more conclusive than those pushed by the evolutionists themselves, with essentially every pillar of geological deep-time being fully questionable in its assertions.
Lyell made his case for an ancient Earth based on geological observations, envisioning an interpretation of the data that would defy the claims of Genesis. Even now, most that stand in defense of deep-time stand on those same geological observations and others, including new insights taken from biology, archaeology, and cosmology. What of their claims? Upon what evidences do they stake their defense of an old Earth, indeed an old universe, and what investigatory methods led them to that position?
Our modern interpretation of deep-time and the endless aeons that filled it were, in part, popularized from the reflections and motivations of Charles Lyell. A lawyer and amateur geologist in the 1800s, Lyell was a deist, and possessing the radical Unitarian beliefs common of his day, supported the notions that, though God may have established the universe, his intervention ended there, with nature obeying various intrinsic laws as it persisted, behaving now as it had since the beginning. Through this view, Lyell advocated that all things observed within the geological record should be interpreted along the same lines. Relying on the evidence that natural erosion and deposition processes are slow and gradual, Lyell was convinced that the features of this planet are the result of vast aeons of the same actions, slowly and gradually altering the landscape. According to those who support the notion, “the present is the key to the past.”
Walking through a shady forest, you take in your surroundings, enjoying the stringent smell of the pines, the warm breeze rustling the branches above. A few yards ahead, just barely discernible through the trees, you spot a cave on the face of a hill and your curiosity drives you to investigate it. Standing at the entrance, you peer in as something catches your eye. In the deep quiet of that place, your vision strains to pierce the darkness, to confirm your suspicions. The caws of a murder of crows chill you for a moment, and you shift your attention above. The dark eyes of the birds meet your own for a brief moment before quiet normalcy returns. Turning back, straining again against the shadows, you see something incongruous with the surroundings. You see the telltale flicker of a candle!
The elegance of the naturalistic model notwithstanding, in the end, what are we really sure of? No panel of dignified researchers or masters of rhetoric arguing in favor of the superiority of the evolution scenario can override the doubt that should settle in the minds of those who understand the sheer enormity of the hurdles faced by the naturalistic origins of life, and likewise the impossible macroevolutionary progression of that life.
All considered, when the remains of supposed ancient humans and their ancestors are measured objectively on the merit of what actually exists and what can actually be understood strictly from the material found, then we find that two or so groups actually existed during that time: the australopithecines, exhibiting features not unlike that of modern chimpanzees and gorillas, and of course upright, intelligent, man, exhibiting at least as much diversity in their physicality as modern Homo sapiens, exaggerated even further in some cases due to diet, disease, and hardship. Homo erectus was as human as you and I, and for that matter, so was the famous Homo neanderthalis, or the Neanderthals.
To be quite clear, Lucy is far from the only anthropoid fossil to be artistically exaggerated into much more than the remains indicate. In fact, many, many proposed protohumans – in spite of their persistent inclusion into dramatic murals of evolutionary progression and such – are known from incredibly fragmented, sometimes dubious, remains.