Creation Science Rebuttals

     The article concerns tiny footprint impressions found in Precambrian rock (older than 543 million years).  Thomas notes that they are probably caused by small marine multi-limbed creatures.  He goes on to quote one of the researchers, who states “Scientists once thought that it was primarily microbes and simple multicellular animals that existed prior to the Cambrian, but that notion is changing,”²  

     This merely represents the beauty of scientific research.   When new data is discovered, theories are amended to account for the new data.  Timelines will be moved based on this discovery.  However, it does not invalidate the theory of evolution, or the old age of the earth.  On the contrary, it enhances old earth history.  It provides a clearer picture of what happened in the past.  The more discoveries we make, the clearer the picture becomes.

     However, from a young earth perspective, each new discovery is an opportunity to take a cheap shot at evidence that the earth is old.  Sadly, most young earth attacks are cheap shots, with no real substance, and they can easily dismissed.   

     This article's conclusions easily support this point.  Thomas states, "This fossil discovery single-handedly and instantly removes 30 million years from the standard evolutionary timeline, which must be re-warped to accommodate the new data. In contrast, biblical history remains the same even after this find..."  By using terms such as 'trampling' and 'warped,' he is clearly playing on one of the young earth creationists primary weapons...an appeal to the emotions of the reader.  Yes, the timeline will be reworked, and it will be more accurate.

     Thomas notes that putting together a picture of the past is difficult because of the limited information available.  He is absolutely correct.  But by using terms such as "warped," he is merely playing on the emotions of the young earth readers.  As is typical in YEC work, he then states  "The reliable framework provided by Scripture, however, not only accommodates the most paleontological data with the fewest assumptions, but its history can be used to predict what we see in the rocks."  He ends the article strongly fixed on a young earth creation, with a God who is unmoved by these scientific facts.  For anyone new to young earth creationist articles, ending on a spiritual note such as this is typical, as it adds more emotion.

     While I agree that God is great, and his works are wonderful, these same works, understood in an old earth timeline, also fit within the 'reliable framework provided by Scripture.'  However, there is one major difference.  Whereas Thomas claims that the evidence fits a young earth model (implied in the statement quoted above), the scientific evidence is clearly against the young earth model.  The only way that the evidence fits a young earth is by "warping" it.  The many articles on this website bear that out. 

     Yes, the evolutionary timelines will be adjusted (not 'warped'), but this adjustment will give us a clearer understanding of earth's history and God's creation.