Skip to content

Dating the Earth: What the Fossil Record Actually Shows

March 16, 2009

Allosaur Fossil Skull

What They WANT You To Believe

What They WANT You To Believe

How many times have you heard this? “The fossil record proves evolution!” It doesn’t. Let me tell you why. Hey, I’ll even show you.

What the Geological Strata Charts don’t tell you.

Now, the picture we’re usually given to illustrate how evolution is demonstrated shows a cross-section of geological strata and some corresponding text to indicate that these strata represent specific ages. They’re all lined up nice and neat from beginning to end. Each slice has a group of representative fossils to show how life has allegedly progressed through the ages. The first few slices show jellyfish, worms and trilobites; the next shows fish; then amphibians and early reptiles; then dinosaurs; then mammals; and finally man. Nice and neat. Of course, it’s just a drawing. Darwinists weren’t actually there, so it’s only their interpretation of what the fossil record means. A few things these charts don’t tell you.

  2. All of the missing links are missing. The dots are only connected in their minds, not in the fossil record. By nature of the fossils themselves, which don’t come with pedigrees, birth certificates or identification tags of any sort, no one can state that one fossil creature is descended from another with absolute certainty. This is an important point. They can speculate, but their speculations presume Darwinism; they don’t spring forth naturally from the evidence. The fossil record simply shows, as Ken Ham has famously put it, “billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth.”
Walker Biblical Geology Chart

Walker Biblical Geology Chart

The Fossil Record Itself Shows that Rapid Burial and Preservation are Key factors in Fossilization

The fossil record is replete with examples of fossils which illustrate that the animals were swept up in some catastrophe and buried almost instantly! We have fish that died in the act of eating another fish…

Last Meal of a Fossil Fish

Last Meal of a Fossil Fish

We have animals which died in the middle of giving birth…

Fossil Ichthyosaur Giving Birth

Fossil Ichthyosaur Giving Birth

Close Up of Pregnant Fossil Ichthyosaur

Close Up of Pregnant Fossil Ichthyosaur

We have large animals [which is a “sizeable” argument for rapid burial in and of itself!] which died seemingly in the midst of struggle…

Fighting Fossils? Why Are Predator and Prey Fossilized Together?

Fighting Fossils? Why Are Predator and Prey Fossilized Together?

We have huge, mass graves where dinosaur fossils are jumbled together like so much flotsam after a flood — and little wonder if the Biblical account is true!




The Morrison Formation: Dinosaur Graveyard

The Morrison Formation: Dinosaur Graveyard

We even have soft-bodied animals and delicate structures such as dragonfly wings which were buried quickly enough to imprint themselves in mud before the decay made that impossible.

Fossilized Dragonfly Wing

Fossilized Dragonfly Wing

Jellyfish Fossils

Jellyfish Fossils

We even have horseshoe crab tracks preseved in stone. How did that escape erasure if stone takes millions of years to form out of mud?

Horseshoe Crab Tracks

Horseshoe Crab Tracks

Add to this the puzzle [for darwinists] of polystratic fossils, tree fossils which run vertically through several strata of rock. 

Polystrate Fossils Run Through Several Strata

Polystrate Fossils Run Through Several Strata

If these strata allegedly represent billions of years, how did the tree survive long enough [without rotting] to become fossilized? On an empirical level, the Mount Saint Helens eruption gave us a tangible example of how polystratic fossils might form. According to Answers in Genesis:

The volcano sent mud and debris hurtling down into Spirit Lake, sloshing a wave nearly 900 feet (300 m) up its initially tree-studded slopes. The wave sheared off trees with enough lumber to make all the houses in a large city! The trees were sheared off their roots and stripped of their leaves, branches, and bark. The “forest” of denuded logs floated out over the huge lake. As they water-logged, many sank vertically down into and through several layers of mud on the lake bottom.


These are anamolies [mass burials all over the Earth, evidence of sudden burial of living creatures and polystrate fossils] created by the Old Earth uniformitarian assumptions, but which are easily accounted for by the Young Earth Biblical Catastrophic model. Ironically, Darwinists and Creationists both agree that in order to be fossilized, the subjects had to be buried completely and very quickly at that to keep the subject from total decomposition so that there would be anything to fossilize! In fact, the debate is not that flooding and rapid burial are critical elements in fossilization; the debate is now whether there were hundreds [or thousands] of small, local flood events or a single global flood such as the Bible records. Guess which one the Darwinists are promoting? Yep, the one that doesn’t lend credence to the Bible. It seems they would cut off their nose to spite their face, so long as they do not allow a Divine foot in the door. So much for parsimony.

Rev. Anthony W Breeden

30 Comments leave one →
  1. April 25, 2009 6:19 pm

    Thanks so much for your great photos showing evidence for rapid fossilization. I was looking for some shots to use for a presentation to our youthgroup and these are great! Keep up the great work!

  2. May 19, 2009 6:52 pm

    Your info was crucial in winning the debate over the newest evolution religion scam with some poor old crushed Lemur carcass.

    See the debate rage by clicking this link.

  3. christian permalink
    June 11, 2009 2:14 am

    Almost as important as radioactive dating is dating by means of geological strata and leading fossils. This method is based on the fact that the history of the Earth has been divided into a group of long geological periods (Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devon, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Perm, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, Tertiary, Quaternary), and that we should find the corresponding strata in the same order from nature. The length of the periods can vary from millions of years up to hundreds of millions of years. The following three issues are the basic presuppositions of this method:

    1. Firstly, slowly and over the course of millions of years, strata have formed and accumulated on top of each other. The lowest of these strata can be up to tens or hundreds of millions of years older than the more recent top strata.

    2. Secondly, there are special fossils or leading fossils that, at their time, were very rife. A geological time scale or a so-called geological column has also been compiled of these leading fossils, and this column should show us when they have existed.

    If a normal layperson was to find a trilobite in any given place, according to this principle, the fossil must be at least 200 million years old, because the trilobite is thought to have become extinct back then.

    When dinosaur bones are found from a stratum, both the bones and the stratum should always be at least 65-120 million years old, as the general idea is that dinosaurs lived during that period of time.

    Correspondingly, according to the same principle, if a stratum includes human fossils, it cannot be more than a few million years old, because it is assumed that people have lived on Earth for this period of time.

    3. Thirdly, when fossils are found in strata, they should always be in the order of the more primitive and older organisms further down. This is believed to indicate how life has evolved from the primitive forms to the current forms.

  4. Gunnar Bruun permalink
    September 13, 2009 1:43 pm

    All you need to refute the Theory of Evolution is a bunny in the pre-Cambrium, or alongside a dinosaur.

    Come on, people. You take the word of a reverend over more than 99% of biologists and geologists in the world? Check here for a rebuttal of ALL Creationists claims.

    Take it from a former Creationist.

  5. September 13, 2009 4:48 pm

    Gunnar Bruun,

    You failed to read my Rules of Engagement, which specifically prohibit any and all hubris from TalkOrigins.

    So I changed your link to one of my old posts that specifically addresses your non-objection.


  6. Gunnar Bruun permalink
    September 14, 2009 10:11 am

    You are refusing links to TalkOrigins, wonder why.
    I believe myself in letting people reading the pros and cons and making up their own mind, but I understand why you were tempted to deny people that.

    I probably would have done the same thing when I was a Creationist.
    Just google TalkOrigins and find the page, people.
    Great resource.

  7. September 14, 2009 5:02 pm


    In your defense, I forgot that my Rules of Engagement are actually over at I simply haven’t posted them here yet.

    TalkOrigins is actually covered in Rule #3:


    3a. Even if it underscores a point you’ve made, don’t bother linking to TalkOrigins or I’ve enough hubris to deal with these days. “

    I like those who disagree with me to make actual coherent arguments rather than appeals to [dubious] authorities. It requires you to actually think out what you believe and engage in reason, which happily I have found to be the greatest deterrent against drive-by screed. It also occasionally leads to actual thought and therefore a change of mind on the part of my opponents.

    But since TalkOrigins came up, read my post on Taking on TalkOrigins: Evolution IS an Unfalsifiable Tautology

    Rev Tony Breeden
    aka Sirius Knott

  8. December 30, 2009 12:31 am

    Excellent site and I really like your “rules of engagement”. Besides, if they found a bunny rabbit with a dinosaur, they would say it was “washed in” But in all seriousness, your site is well designed and your arguements are well thought out and pithy. May the our Creator bless your ministry and life.

    Mark H.

  9. December 30, 2009 5:01 pm

    Glad you liked it, Mark! Happy New Year!

    btw, Gentle Readers, you might want to check out Mark’s post, The Scientific Censure of the Fossil Record: The Trade Secret of Paleontology. It’s an excellent complement to the information in this post!

    -Rev Tony Breeden
    aka Sirius Knott &

  10. May 15, 2010 10:05 am

    Thanks Sirius for your blog. I am planning to use this page tomorrow in my Christian Worldview of Origins Class. You have researched well and made this page exactly what I need.

  11. May 15, 2010 1:32 pm

    Glad to be of help!

    In His Service,
    Rev Tony Breeden
    aka Sirius Knott

  12. June 30, 2010 7:53 pm

    Wow! Cool! I’m going to share some of this with my friends! That dragonfly wing is SUPER! Thanks for posting these!

  13. Kerryn P permalink
    August 24, 2010 4:03 am

    Thanks so much for posting something that actually makes sense instead of the evolution garbage. I’m studying biology in school and I find it so annoying how they portray evolution as fact and don’t even mention the possibility of Creation. This post is great. Can I some of you pictures for my assessment?

  14. August 24, 2010 12:23 pm

    Thank you for stopping by. I’ll actually be updating this post in the near future with more pictures and information, so check back within the next few weeks.

    Sure. Some of the pictures here are copyrighted elsewhere and are shown here under Fair Use standards, so just be aware of how that works.

    God bless and keep thinking!
    Rev Tony Breeden &

  15. November 2, 2010 2:48 pm

    Great information, I’ve added a link to your site from the fossils page on my website.

    If you feel it is appropriate, I’d appreciate it if you added a link to my home page from your site, which is as follows,

    Keep up the good work – the truth will set people free.

    God bless,


  16. November 3, 2010 12:20 am


    Thanks very much for the add! I’ve been meaning to set up a page (possible 2) with useful links. Give me a few days and I’ll return the favor.

    God bless and stay in the Word!

  17. dominic permalink
    August 19, 2011 9:27 am

    We give the evolutionist too much; they don’t have the major missing link, which is non life to life. if they did, they wouldn’t post a million dollar reward for any who can provide a evolutionary read on the origin of life.

    The Origin-of-Life Foundation (OLF) is offering the prize
    through the Gene Emergence Project (MD, USA).
    This group is dedicated to finding the answer to what
    biology professor Jack Trevors (a member) calls the
    most pressing question in science, ‘The origin of the
    genetic instructions in the DNA …’, pointing out that
    ‘Genetic instructions don’t write themselves any more
    than a software program writes itself’.

  18. Doug Keehn permalink
    January 27, 2012 5:23 pm

    I am sort of an amateur paleontologist. I have found many various fossils over the years. Once I found a fossilized rhinoceros jawbone with all its teeth. I had to reinforce it with plaster of paris just to get it out without it crumbling to pieces! My observations seem to show me that fossils are fragile and no way can be millions of years old. If they were, there would be nothing left of them due to all the geological changes that can occur in the earth’s crust. What the bible says about the Genesis flood is true.

  19. Lyn Carter permalink
    June 10, 2012 6:09 am

    Any person who cannot see this charlatan website for what it is must be so severely indoctrinated that they’ve forgotten their common sense. It’s just as well we’re not all the same (variation being fundamental to evolution) so that people much smarter than you can discover the truth. Because that is the difference isn’t it? I am so glad you pointed out that scientists’ don’t make up the answer if it isn’t known, unlike the religious. How arrogant are you to think your claims with no solid evidence are correct just because YOU say they are? This is laughable in mainstream society.

    Some of the things you are talking about being “missing” were discovered years ago. It is such a shame that you all can’t apply that critical eye of yours to the bible and then perhaps many of the atrocities that have been committed in the name of “religious truth” might not have happened. Why would this one book out of ALL of the books in existence be correct on all things? Because your imaginary friend wrote it? Now you are trying to use real life scientific evidence in YOUR favor? Why doesn’t the book mention where you might find such evidence, pretty thoughtless of those authors (or was it God?) to leave that part out, wasn’t it? What other fairy tales would you believe? Do you think there are fairies at the bottom of your garden? Is the flying spaghetti monster real too? Some think he is and come up with pseudo science such as this to “prove” their point of view too. Think for yourselves.

  20. Eryc permalink
    June 12, 2012 5:02 am

    This is a bunch of misrepresentations of what “they” believe with a few examples (that are validly explained in many books and peer reviewed scientific journals) to back up a world view that is impossible. Have you ever considered that by propagating a World Flood four thousand years ago you are simultaneously propagating rapid evolution of species to the point that it shatters your “science?” For two of every “kind” (whatever that is) and some, seven of, to transform into the millions of creatures that have “breath” today (whatever that is), creature change – Evolution – would have to have taken place so rapidly in 4000 years that they would all be dead from mutation and disease. In other words it’s impossible to get what you have today all around the world from an ark. The Bible was never meant to be a science book. It’s a spiritual book. Otherwise you might as well believe the four corners are literal and satyrs and unicorns too. If someone were to go over all your points they’d have to write a book in a reply form. That’s why Gunnar Bruun suggests checking out links you dislike.

  21. June 12, 2012 2:54 pm

    By promoting a literal World Wide Flood you are simultaneously promoting evolution of species. How? To get from the 2 of every ‘kind’ on the small ark, (a few 7 of every ‘kind’) to the millions of species today, such drastic evolution would have to take place that it would be detrimental in any real life scenario. So basically you profess evolution at a rate that even evolutionists would blush at.

  22. June 14, 2012 9:42 pm


    You seem to be greatly confused as to what Creationists believe. We affirm observable horizontal changes like speciation, mutation, natural selection, etc, which we term variation within created kinds. For example, a dog is still a dog, be it a wolf, English bulldog or a dachsund.

    I am curious as to how small you think the Ark was? Do you have that cartoonish bathtub toy version of the Ark in mind when you object to its feasibility? The Ark was actually quite big, as the following article illustrates:

    As to the rate of change, you might like to read the following article [off-site]:

    As to rapid speciation being detrimental in any real-life scenario, I doubt you could substantiate such a claim, espcially in light of the fact that the off-site article I’ve linked mentions several cases of such rapid speciation. Furthermore, even evolutionists believe that rapid speciation takes place in the wake of a catastrophic extinction event.


  23. June 14, 2012 10:10 pm


    I see you’ve left a more detailed comment. Having already answered your points, I shall not repeat myself, except the additional material.

    Do you not see a great irony in your belief that evolution can have been going on for millions of years, yet you find rapid speciation impossible because you suppose it would result in far too many mutations and genetic disorders? You do realize that tumors are found in the fossil record, I hope. Far more feasible to suppose that such deleterious mutations and genetic disorders have accumulated over a relatively short span rather than life having somehow continued on for millions of years in the face of such genetic entropy! In any case, creationists believe that the Ark kinds likely were closer to their “very good”/gentically perfect forbears from the Creation Week. In the following generations, Ark kinds adapted to their expanding ecologies; natural selection weeded out harmful mutations, but such mutations have now become far more numerous.

    I’m disappointed to have to field the sophomoric jab of the Bible not being a science book… yet again. Of course, it’s not a science book; it’s a book of several genres, including history, poetry, wisdom sayings, teachings, songs and prophetic works. It’s simply bunk to call it a “spiritual book.” Where the Bible speaks on scientific matters, it is wholly accurate. Of course, we do take into account phenomenological language and figures of speech, such as the “setting sun” or the “four corners of the globe”, even taking the Bible literally. We also do not have the arrogance to presume that when it speaks of satyrs and unicorns that it speaks of the mythological creatures we think of when we use those words today. Unicorns likely refers to the rhinoceros, while satyrs refers to some sort of mountain goat, ibex, etc.

    To answer your final insult, I may have grew up in church, but I soundly rejected both Christianity and creationism when I graduated from high school. I spent the next decade as a rather blasphemous agnostic. When I accepted Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior, I still supposed God could have used evolution and that the universe was billions of years old. So I am wholly familiar with the content of the links that oppose Biblical creationism. I also know that most of them parrot the sort of oft-answered chestnuts you just offered. In other words, like you, they are guilty of ignoring the links they dislike, while bashing away at straw man arguments their opponents never held or credulously repeating arguments that have been answered ad infinitum.


  24. June 14, 2012 10:47 pm

    Lyn Carter,

    Charlatan website? If you think me a charlatan then challenge me to any specific error I have made. All you’ve made are sweeping generalizations mingled with ad hominem. In other words, How arrogant are you to think your claims are correct with no solid evidence just because YOU say they are, Lyn Carter?

    fyi, creationists do affirm observable horizontal changes [ie, natural selections, adaptation, mutation, speciation], but not unobservanle vertical [phyletic] changes [viz. dinos-to-bird, ungulates-to-whales, etc] changes via common descent. So variation is fundamental to creationism as well, we just don’t imbue it with the miraculous creative power evolutionists claim for it.

    Which is why I’m glad you brought up that slap about indoctrination. As someone who grew up in church, only to reject Christianity for an agnostic decade largely due to an exclusive, uncritical indoctrination into the all-natural history of the universe, I’d like you to sit back for a second and really think about who’s indoctrinated here. Even after I became a Christian, I affirmed millions of years of evolution for several years thereafter until further study convinced me that the Bible was true from the beginning.

    I should note that your comment about religious attrocities is a red herring. Would you like me to recount the racist attrocities that have been committed in the name of evolution? How about Ota benga, the man who was displayed in the monkey house of the Bronx Zoo? How about those poor Aboriginal humans who were hunted and killed to be stuffed and displayed in museums as the missing link? Shall we go onward to discuss eugenics and ethnic cleansing which have their justification in evolutionary dogma? The crazy thing is that evolutionary theory is consistent with these attrocities, but are committed hypocritically by those within Christianity. Yet all of the burnt-edged, runny-middled, egg shell-riddled omelets in the word do not invalidate the recipe for the perfect omelet – they just demonstrate why we need to follow the directions in the cookbook!

    Neither does it matter whether the Bible specifically tells us where to find scientific evidence to support it. How would this invalidate the scientific evidence I am using to support creationism? But let me ask you this: If God wrote a book, what would it look like and how would we recognize it? While you’re thinking about it, consider this: the Bible contains tons of prophecy, much of it fulfilled. It resonates with the human experience. It has been vindicated by history and archaeology. It does not ignore the failings of its human heroes, but records even their flaws and misdeeds faithfully. It’s message has remained consistent and coherent over the centuries.

    Oh and for the record. no one here is affirming the existence of fairies and absolutely no one believes in the existence of the FSM. The Noodly One was made up to mock the Biblical God. Everyone knows the FSM isn’t real.

    For more on why it’s never agood idea to invoke the FSM on one of my sites read this:

    And this:


  25. Dirk Jan permalink
    November 18, 2012 1:49 pm

    You geniuses do know that a global flood is impossible in nature right?
    Noah’s ark is a fairytale which has been proven to be incorrect time and time again.

    If you want to say that there was a global flood and that those fossils are in fact from that time, please provide some evidence for it.

  26. November 18, 2012 11:37 pm

    Spoken like a man who has never considered the evidence for a competing theory… even the evidence presented in this very post. Your handwaving and ad hominem doesn’t exactly address any of my points, sir.


  1. Creation Letter News: Introducing our Mascot - Deceptivorus « The Creation Letter Project
  2. Most Popular Posts of 2010 |
  3. Featured as’s Website of the Month «
  4. Was Noah A Millionaire? James McGrath’s Theology Stumbles On Scripture |

Leave a Reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: