Missing human artifacts in the fossil record

This has some bearing on those "dinosaur prints" in an earlier post.

 

From: Randy Crum <carumba17@yahoo.com>

Date: Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:07 AM

Subject: [OriginsTalk] Missing human artifacts in the fossil record

To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com

 

One of the many, many, many reasons that we know that the fossil record is not a result of the flood account in the Bible is that there are no confirmed human artifacts mixed in with the fossils.

 

Creationists offer contrsdictory explanations for where the water for the flood came from and how it arrived on land. The most recent "explanation" that has found favor is the so-called hydroplate hypothesis. That hypothesis says that the water was trapped under the Earth's crust, was released by a catastrophic event of some type, was thrown into the atmosphere and then fell to the Earth as rain, thereby flooding the Earth.

 

There are a long list of problems with that hypothesis, but I would like to focus on the "rain" part. When it rains, humans find shelter. They look for cover, not higher ground. Surely all of us in our own personal experience know this. If humans merely look for shelter, they might become stranded as the water level increases. For example, I would stay in my house if it started to rain. My house is about five feet

above the street level. If the water level reached my front steps, I would be stranded with no way of escaping. My car can't go through five feet of water. I don't own a boat. Higher ground is many miles away. I would most likely drown in my house. If the water for the [mythical] flood came from rain, we should therefore see human, and other mammalian fossils, mixed in with all layers of geological strata. Since we don't see that in the fossil record, creationists say that humans went to higher ground when the flood began. But people only

do that if water levels are rising due to something like a flooded river. The recent floods in Fargo, ND, resulted in people seeking higher ground. But those floods were the result of the Red River of the North rising. They were not due to rain. So the hydroplate hypothesis contradicts some of the other creationist claims.

 

But in either case, we should see human artifacts througout the fossil record. They should be very common.

 

Humans had homes and settlements, often made from stone. Nearly all settlements had stone walls around them. They also had large stone grinding wheels as well as stone and bronze tools and weapons. Surely people fleeing for their lives or facing drowning at home are not going to take such things with them during their escape. If large amounts of mud caused the fossils then they would have also covered those artifacts.

 

Another point of emphasis is that stone tools and shelters don't decompose under water. Neither are they eaten by marine organisms. Therefore such artifacts should be preserved at a HIGHER rate than the fossils of living organisms would be.

 

The lack of any such confirmed artifacts clearly demonstrates that the fossil record is not the result of a global flood as recorded in the Bible.

 

As further confirmation, turn the actual results around. What if there WERE human artifacts found throughout the fossil record? That would be evidence for a flood that no one could argue with.

 

Note furthermore that things like spear points and arrowheads are found with Mammoth and Mastodon fossils. That is considered to be clear and undeniable evidence that those creatures co-existed with humans. So the fact that such things are NOT found mixed with the fossils of dinosaurs is yet more evidence that the flood account in the Bible is a complete myth. More to the point, the [mythical] flood account does NOT explain the fossil record.

 

Randy C.

 

It's kind of distressing that a case like this still has to be made in the 21st Century.