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.
The second matter of opposition is one of broad interpretation. It is said that common features are to be ascribed to common descent, with various forms exhibiting similarities because of their evolutionary heritage. As it has already been noted, could it not instead be that common features are the result of a common designer? Could God, in the creation of this world and its life, have utilized successful morphological models repeatedly? It comes down to one’s worldview as to which choice appears most likely.
From times immemorial, man has held a position of power and authority over nature, at least beyond that of any other life form. Can we, as the secular communities insist, categorize ourselves as mere animals only for a time enjoying a position of comfort within the natural order of things, or are we more, something special perhaps?
Concerning mutation, what drives this process? What can we observe? Evolution can be ascribed by the mainstream to a range of circumstances, including genetic drift or natural selection, but by far the most common mechanism relied upon for the process is mutation. It is, for the naturalist, the quintessential engine that drives the evolution process, pushing simple cells towards great majestic beasts, and ultimately us. Mutation is critical to their worldview, to say the least.