Creationism, as I’ve clarified before, does not mean belief in god or belief in a creator. But rather it is the fringe view, even within most religions, that a particular creation story is to be taken literally. This entails many impossibilities, the most obvious one in the judeo-christian creation story is that the entire universe would have to be younger than some living trees. The native american would have gotten to north america before the universe began according to this time line. Obviously there are a few bugs to be worked out.
But before you go put your blind faith in “science”, creationists want you to see their evidence.
I saw in a search result on xanga when searching for blogs containing the word “fossil” that soccerdadforlife had posted a link to a creationist website. Having been blocked from his site for as long as I can remember and not being able to read the blog, I looked up the link (which was in the blurb in the search results). I did so only out of morbid curiosity since the blog title claimed to have proof of human fossils from the cambrian period, some 500+ million years before the first primates show up in the fossil record.
So what startling evidence do they have? A rock that looks like a swollen finger!
I kid you not, someone “found” this and it’s supposedly a fossilized human finger from the cambrian period:
Now if you’re like me and know anything about science, or have watched any crime forensics show in your life, the first thing you will notice is that this “finger” is fat and bloated apparently completely in-tact. When actual human tissue decomposes no matter how well preserved it is (which is why we don’t have fossilized dinosaur kidneys) and even in cases of mummification it shrivels since the moisture is the first thing to go, like so:
This is a hand from a 3,000 year old extremely well-preserved mummy. They are claiming the above “finger” (rock) is well over thirty thousand times as old and was in the ground, not extremely protected and chemically preserved in a sealed tomb.
But wait, there’s more!
They x-rayed the “finger” and this is what they found:
To quote the website, “This fossil is obviously human in its appearance, both inside and out.”
For reference, here is an x-ray of a mummy’s hand:
It looks so rock-like!
This stuff is so comical.
But wait, there’s more!
They claim to have found a human hand print in similarly old rock.
Here is an actual human handprint in mud:
And just for reference, these are beaver tracks:
And this is a racoon paw print:
You be the judge.
The above supposed human hand print is possibly fake, and real paleontologists hire people to document finds as they are being unearthed so that the field of paleontology isn’t just a competition over who can chisel the most interesting impressions in stone. Loose rocks which were dug up “somewhere over there I think” are never considered credible by actual scientists. They are always considered credible in creationist circles however… that is if they line up with their preferred conclusions. The below “man track” was also supposedly taken un-documented from an unknown location:
At first glance you might think “hmm, this looks like a human footprint”. But the main reason for this is that we generally wear shoes (especially when walking in wet, muddy areas) so we forget what our footprints actually look like. To remind you, they look like this:
The creationist one looks like a six year old tried to draw a human footprint from memory. I’m considered to have big feet, and mine are around 10 inches long and 4 inches wide. The creationist foot is 6 1/2 by 14 inches, lol. That must have been one tall damn caveman. Especially given that human height (and shoe size) has significantly increased in modern times, and if these tracks were made thousands of years ago they would have been even more comically large. Not to mention peoples’ feet just aren’t shaped like that.
A quick search of the name “Clifford Burdick” (the guy who apparently “discovered” the footprint) reveals:
“Burdick has displayed a copy of his Ph.D. from the University of Physical Sciences (Phoenix, Arizona) in Carl Baugh’s Glen Rose Creation Evidence Museum. According to Ronald Numbers’ The Creationists : “[Creationist Walter Lammerts’] inquiries revealed the University of Physical Science to be nothing more than a registered trademark. As described in its memographed bulletin, ‘The University is not an educational institution, but a society of individuals of common interest for the advancement of physical science. There are no campus, professors or tuition fee.'” (source)
I could go through the rest of the crap on this webpage, but I’m getting kind of bored with this. Hope you enjoyed anyhow.