Gotcha Proofs by Young Earth Creationists, II

Posted on:

Modified on:


Y’all know that I’m an Old Earth Creationist. I make no apologies for rejecting Young Earth interpretations that defy the senses that God gave me. I try to present my opinions respectfully, but sometimes it’s hard in the face of some absurd arguments for that viewpoint.

For several years, I have been “trolling” the Biblical Creation group on Facebook, just for perspective. I rarely comment, or I’d spend all day every day at it. Their stock in trade is supposed “proof” in the form of half-baked misrepresentations of evidence. I did post a detailed response to a post two years ago, which I later transcribed here.

I took on another one today:


This is the original article:

VERY RARE OCTOPUS FOSSIL SHOOTS DOWN EVOLUTION.......

Darwin once said the octopus evolved from starfish. Not only is there no evidence for this, but there are no known ancestors of the octopus. Darwinists have claimed we don't see octopus fossils to prove anything anyway. Not anymore. This supposedly "95 million year old" fossil complete with tentacles and suckers is remarkably preserved and sits in a Paris museum. Normally when an octopus dies, it sinks and gets eaten very quickly, or becomes a blob and decays within days-It's been called a rarer specimen than finding a fossilized sneeze (Science Daily). So a fossil like this does 2 things..1 . It proves that octopuses have always been octopuses as God made them fully complete in the beginning. 2. It shows that something preserved this octopus quickly. According to the Biblical timeframe and Noah's flood, masses of sediment would have created toxic conditions wiping out massive amounts of sea life as we see in the fossil record, quickly preserving specimens as they died on the ocean floor. The Bible trumps evolution..again!

My response:

Please! Things that are true need to be proved by truth, not by uninformed gotchas. My main Facebook presence is in Bible archaeology groups, and the same thing goes on there with supporters of charlatan “Christian archaeologists” like Ron Wyatt and others, whose idea of proof is, “It looks like a duck, so it absolutely IS a duck.”

As a retired petroleum explorationist with decades of practical experience in depositional analysis, I say this story is BUNK! To begin with, fossilization is very commonly found in continental flash flooding, lake beds, aeolian (windblown) sand dunes, and many other situations. In ocean waters, turbidity mud flows are common below silty river mouths; and in deep water, in mud flows due to earthquakes, minor sudden fault shifts, and even when gravity finally tips over mudbanks formed by years of current or tidal action, or even the slow process of continental drift. All those things not only occur but have been observed in action.

As to the specifics here: First, don’t quote Darwin. He authored the theory, but even modern evolutionists who idolize him know that many of the specifics of his views have been superseded or discarded. The theory remains, of course, but please cite newer sources, which posit octopus’ origins in early mollusks (snails and slugs), far removed from starfish.

This particular fossil is similar to modern octopi, but with notable differences in the sucker arrangement and the ink sac, among other factors. This species does NOT exist today.

“It proves that octopuses have always been octopuses”. That’s either an overzealous statement or an outright lie. It proves NOTHING. It does nothing to prove the Bible, which I believe on unwavering faith, and it doesn’t prove anything pro-evolution, either.

As a devout Christian with one foot in theology and the other in science, I wrote the following, for anyone interested (contrary to the link, the actual title is, “Does Science Trump Theology?”, and the short answer is no, but it is valuable):

https://gpront.blog/…/19/theory-in-science-and-theology/


Unknown's avatar

Author: Ron Thompson

Retired President of R. L Thompson Engineering, Inc.

3 thoughts on “Gotcha Proofs by Young Earth Creationists, II”

  1. I just read your notes about young earth believers and I agree that it makes no sense. You mention that you are a devout Christian, I hope that I am too. I have run into a problem with that, for instance what defines a devout Christian? Some would say it is this, or that or my own understanding. In fact I have talked to many people over the years about the subject and have listened to many opinions, is there any way that one can put a definition to what is a Christian? I am not trying to imply it is impossible to answer the question I have raised, there is an answer. How do you feel about it?

    1. James, I’m sorry, I thought I’d replied to this, but I don’t see it. A devout Christian is simply one who loves God and trusts Him. I think that Hebrews 11:6 provides the best short definition:

      Hebrews 11:6 (ESV)
      [6] And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.

      If you want a check-list of “signs of salvation”, I think 1st John does a pretty good job. Read the whole epistle, but concentrate on:
      • 1:6-10
      • 2:3-6
      • 2:9-11
      • 2:15-17
      • 2:23-25
      • 3:6
      • 3:10
      • 3:24
      • 4:8
      • 4:20

      Ron Thompson

  2. In my view, you are a “Christian” if and only if you trust the God of the Christians and Jews with your life and your afterlife, as per Hebrews 11. You are “devout” if you are devoted to doing His will, whether you fully understand it or not. I think that a fervent effort to understand is implicit.

Leave a reply to Ron Thompson Cancel reply