Creationist Wisdom #635: The Fossil Record Fails

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the fifth biggest-selling regional evening newspaper in Britain, the Shropshire Star of Ketley, in Shropshire. Charles Darwin was born in Shropshire. The letter is titled The fossil record does not support theory of evolution. The newspaper has a comments feature.

Because today’s writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. His first name is David. We wrote about one of his letters before — see #543: Dem Bones, Dem Bones. Excerpts from his new letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

In answer to DJ Goodall (Star mail October 26), he says in my letter of October 10 that I wrote about fossils!

This is David’s earlier letter: Jurassic art provides a historic headache, in which he asks: “I wonder if your readers are aware of the many cave paintings, supposedly drawn or painted by primitive cave men, depicting various dinosaurs?” We can’t find the Goodall response to it, but it doesn’t matter. David says:

Perhaps he should read the letter again, as I did not mention fossils at all! My question was, how could paintings, petroglyphs, stone carvings and brass plates have been produced by people hundreds of years before dinosaur bones were even discovered if they had not seen the real thing and knew what they looked like?

We’ve seen that argument before, e.g.: The Miracle of the Ica Stones. Aside from fakes, there’s the possibility that early people found some dinosaur fossil bones and used them as the idea for cave drawings. Also, see Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times. Let’s read on:

The present popular view of the fossil record as showing a development of creatures from simple to complex over millions of years is seriously flawed. If it was true, we would not expect to find living fossils today as they should have become extinct.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Everything must change! The TalkOrigins Index to Creationist Claims has a few rebuttals of that, for example: Some species, such as the tuatara, horseshoe crab, cockroach, ginkgo, and coelacanth, are “fossil species.” They have not evolved for millions of years. David continues:

Darwin saw fossils as a very serious problem with his evolutionary view. It does not stand up to examination. He suggested that as more and more fossils were discovered we would find transitional and intermediate forms. However, not a single such species has been discovered. On the contrary, every unearthed fossil specimen has possessed features and characteristics that prove its species has never changed!

Wow — that’s extreme! Okay, this is our obligatory link to Wikipedia’s List of transitional fossils. Here’s more from David:

Many years ago I was sent a large, very heavy book by a Muslim scholar showing photographs of fossils and their living counterparts. The accompanying letter said: “Charles Darwin and his followers asserted that the millions of different species, living and extinct on the earth have evolved from one another by coincidence. But the fossil record, 99 per cent of which has been excavated over the last 150 years, documents that organisms have not undergone the slightest change for even hundreds of millions of years”.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! That’s probably the Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya — the pen-name of Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar. We haven’t seen any mention of him for years. And now we come to the end:

Sadly, despite the increasing body of evidence to the contrary, Darwinian evolution continues to be taught as the only theory of origins allowed in our education system, to the detriment of real scientific study and the ability to reason properly.

So there you are. David is upset, and for good reason. He can’t get any respect.

Copyright © 2015. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

14 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #635: The Fossil Record Fails

  1. I’m shocked, shocked to discover there’s another creationist who doesn’t know what he’s talking about!

  2. “[O]rganisms have not undergone the slightest change for even hundreds of millions of years.”

    That’s what makes parking under a tree so dangerous. Dinosaurs might poop all over it.

  3. “The present popular view of the fossil record ….. is seriously flawed.”
    Excellent! The only thing that’s flawed is of course the creationist understanding of living fossils.

    http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/04/20/coelacanths-are-unexceptional-products-of-evolution/

    “However, not a single such species has been discovered.”
    Dogs are an intermediate and transitional form. Some dogs still can reproduce with gray wolves, others can’t.
    Mega must be so proud that this fine representant of his country not only accepts the challenge from the other side of the big pond but also totally holds his own.

    @Mark G: I’m happy to report that I consumed a tasty dinosaur today. A while before consumption it still uttered “kot kooooot kot kot kot koooot!”

  4. That’s probably the Atlas of Creation by Harun Yahya — the pen-name of Turkish creationist Adnan Oktar. We haven’t seen any mention of him for years.

    Unless I’m misremembering, Oktar sent out multiple review copies of this epic volume a few years ago to Western scientists, including such easily persuadable folk as Richard Dawkins. Then — but you can predict this, can’t you? — there were tantrums because the reviews by the scientists weren’t, um, entirely favorable.

    The alternative name for Shropshire is, incidentally, Salop. I reckon that, right around now, there ought to be an open season on David’s saloppy thinking. No?

  5. “despite the increasing body of evidence to the contrary,”

    Here’s where the creationist translator comes in handy. Most ethical people might not catch on to the notion that creationists view “evidence” as something like a claim that has been repeated numerous times rather than the classical use of the word that would imply that meaningful data exists. Just like Tinkerbell, each time the magic phrase is uttered, it becomes just a little more plausible in the mind of the audience.

    To paraphrase G.Purdom “the misuse of the word evidence is consistent with our long term goals”.

  6. Charles Deetz ;)

    Have you seen the new Dakotasaur? Big dinosaur with wings. Certainly not a bird has Hambo would want him to be. Closest thing to a croco-duck yet.

  7. Many years ago I was sent a large, very heavy book by a Muslim scholar showing photographs of fossils and their living counterparts. The accompanying letter said: “Charles Darwin and his followers asserted that the millions of different species, living and extinct on the earth have evolved from one another by coincidence. But the fossil record, 99 per cent of which has been excavated over the last 150 years, documents that organisms have not undergone the slightest change for even hundreds of millions of years”.

    This may e the only time an American creationist has had anything positive to say about any Muslim. Apparently they’ll cozy up to anyone who backs their crazy notions, even if he belongs to a religion they’d rather see wiped off the face of the earth.

  8. Thanks for the link, Ashley Haworth-roberts. One of the commenters there referred to David as a “Salopian dolt.”

  9. mnbo suggests

    Mega must be so proud that this fine representant of his country not only accepts the challenge from the other side of the big pond but also totally holds his own.

    Indeed! While I have to admit that the American colonies long ago surpassed Britannia in the arena of whacko idiocy, we haven’t entirely abandoned the field. We still think back with pride on a time when the Moon never set on globe-girdling British lunacy. Pip pip!

    And a small personal footnote on this: my elder daughter is currently reading History at the University of York and has signed up for a course next term of which I am extremely jealous: The Politics of Evolution in Britain, c.1844-c.1918

  10. Well fooey. Bloody html tag went all whack-a-doodle in previous post😦

    [*Voice from above*] In posting comments as in romance, you always seem to make the same blunders.

  11. Well dim dude the fossil record will never PROVE evilution, no matter how many transitionals you deny . But what you, dim dude, have is even less valid!

  12. Mega, unless you actually own the course, or the University of York itself, you can’t be jealous of it. The word you want is ‘envious’, and you envy your daughter’s ability to sign up for it, not the course itself.

    Sorry. I just had to. I’m feeling better now.