Click here to view CMI's position on climate change.
Also Available in:
This article is from
Creation 34(1):15, January 2012

Browse our latest digital issue Subscribe

Twice as wrong—and more

Fossilized eukaryote cells and giant anomalocaridids force dramatic revisions of the evolutionary timeline


©iStockPhoto.com/PIKSEL| ©iStockPhoto.com/klikk Twice as wrong

The discovery of fossilized cells1 in north-west Scotland has forced a dramatic rewrite of the supposed evolutionary history of life on Earth.2 That’s because the fossil organisms were said to have lived in freshwater lakes and were ‘dated’ as being one billion years old. That is in stark contrast to previous claims that life didn’t begin its landward migration from its evolutionary starting-point in the oceans until half a billion years ago.

So these newly found fossil cells, says New Scientist, suggest that “the primitive relatives of all animals, plants and fungi had left the oceans and moved into terrestrial waters twice as long ago as thought.”3

Twice as long? No. The ‘date’ is now twice as wrong as it was before. The fossils actually date from the Flood of Noah’s day, about 4,500 years ago. The researchers noted the “exceptionally detailed three-dimensional preservation” of the fossils.2 This, in common with many other fossils found worldwide, is right in line with what one would logically expect from the global Flood.

Another recent example was the discovery of “extraordinarily well-preserved” fossils in Morocco.4,5 These were giant (length 1 metre, or 3 ft) shrimp-like creatures with soft bodies preserved along with “thousands of [other] examples of soft-bodied marine fauna” there.4 How so? They “were trapped by sediment clouds that buried them and preserved their soft bodies”.4 Note that the researchers were forced to substantially revise their timeline. They were ‘trapped’ by the evolutionary mindset that sedimentary rock layers with embedded fossils represent the order of evolution and extinction over millions of years rather than the order of burial during the Noachian Flood. They now say that “these animals existed for 30 million years longer than previously realized”.4

And the researchers also mentioned an earlier dramatic modification of the evolutionary story about these creatures. The discovery of complete specimens in the Burgess Shale showed that fossils that had been thought to be a multiplicity of different creatures actually “all belong to a single kind of animal”.5,6

These two dramatic revisions of the evolutionary timeline—500 million years and 30 million years respectively—are the latest in a long procession of spectacular rewrites of the evolution story. Nor are they likely to be the last. That’s because speculation about the past is not in the same category as a true eyewitness account of what really happened, which does not change (Deuteronomy 19:15b, 2 Corinthians 13:1, Matthew 24:35).


  1. The fossilized cells were eukaryotic cells—i.e. cells which have a membrane around the nucleus, cf. prokaryotes (bacteria), which do not. Return to text.
  2. Strother, P., Battison, L., Brasier, M. and Wellman, C., Earth’s earliest non-marine eukaryotes, Nature 473(7348):505–509, 2011. Return to text.
  3. Life had left the oceans a billion years ago, New Scientist 210(2808):20, 16 April 2011. Return to text.
  4. Fossil of giant ancient sea predator discovered, sciencedaily.com, 26 May 2011. Return to text.
  5. Van Roy, P. and Briggs, D., A giant Ordovician anomalocaridid, Nature 473(7348):510–513, 2011. Return to text.
  6. The name Anomalocaris means ‘abnormal shrimp’, because the first parts to be discovered were the ‘arms’ in front of the mouth. They had detached and separately fossilized, and were mistaken for strange shrimp. Then its ring mouth was discovered as a separate fossil and mistaken for a jellyfish (‘Peytoia’). Parts of the body were mistaken for a sponge (‘Laggania’). It was decades before scientists realized that they were all part of a single huge creature. The rules for naming require that the oldest name takes priority. The other names have been co-opted for other genera of anomalocaridids. Return to text.

Readers’ comments

A. H.
William I. stated this:-'"The fossils actually date from the Flood of Noah’s day, about 4,500 years ago."

Is that a guess or do you have verifiable proof of this? Also, it's not exactly honest to then go on making claims, based on this guess work, that it somehow proves your hypothesis of a "global flood".

A for effort, F for methodology.'

It is basic that presuppositions determine what is counted as evidence.
The testimony of the Lord Jesus Christ to the Flood clearly implies that the flood was as extensive in its effects as the judgement at his Second Coming will be. The rejection of His Testimony (which is that of, not only of an eyewitness, but the initiator) can only be the result of the operation of a competing presupposition. This presupposition is succinctly summarised as 'the present is the key to the past'. If the scripture is true in 2 Peter chapter 3 then this presupposition is not only false but is willingly substituted for the testimony of the fathers to the Creation and Flood.
There are worldwide accounts which are most obviously related to this worldwide flood by the operation of Occam's razor.

Therefore a naturalistic guess has been substituted (initially consciously by Lyell) for the testimony derived from eyewitnesses underwritten by the initiator of the worldwide flood.
The reality is therefore the precise 180 degree reverse of the situation as depicted by William I.
Hans G.
Hello William from Germany....In my school time in Germany the teacher would have said: William, six for not doing your homework, sit down!
Scott M.

Not to gang up on you, but William from Germany who commented earlier does have kind of a good point. You should avoid saying things like "about 4,500 years ago" in an article that criticizes the imprecision of another theory. It would be okay if it was established elsewhere on the CMI website just exactly when that flood was supposed to have happened (or at least an analysis of what the errors are), but there isn't. There are several different articles by several different authors that each give their own dates, although most admit that they aren't sure. I calculated errors of at least 10% between the various theories. For comparison, the 'long age-er' theory of a 4.54 billion year Earth has errors of 1% and modern archeologists place the building of the pyramids of Giza at 4600 years ago with errors of 1%. Now, they both may be wrong, but at least they have tried to determine exactly what their evidence does and does not tell them. What is important is that the date of flood is actually very closely tied with the date of creation. Therefore being imprecise about the date of the flood is akin to being imprecise about the date of creation. Since one of the major goals of CMI is to advocate for an alternative theory for the age of the Earth, it is indeed a methodological problem that there isn't a favored, precise (with errors calculated) age of the Earth. This is by no means a large problem, but fixing it will help people like me who read a lot of articles and see "about 4,300" in one article and then "about 4,500" in another and wonder what you mean.
Daniel T.
I like Brian H`s comment because it is true and forthright.The evolutionists have to accept the known and recorded human history as presented in the Holy Bible. They cannot deny the flood and they cannot deny the history of God`s chosen people. But, they come up with these dubious fossil finds and claim their ages to be millions of years. They are not able to show us fossils of 7000 years, 10,000 years, 20,000 years etc. but jump straight into millions of years ! Why? Because it is the stupidest figment of their imagination. Why should they not be able to establish a continuous, unbroken chain of creation chronology? Far too many and too large gaps there. I clearly remember how I went with my father to shoot a sweet water(river) salmon trout in summer (hot May). This 3 feet long fish could be spotted because of the thousands of her offspring small fishes following it as it came up to water surface for air. /all these small fishes never grow to their mother`s size, but they become food for other fish and creatures in water. Darwin dare not propound that there was an understanding between the mother fish and these other creatures eating her off spring, neither can he say that those creatures evolved into their present state by studying availability of this food! It is God who made this wonderful earth and the whole universe. Atheists and evolutionists are obsessed by a spirit of rebellion against God, the Creator. It is beyond human comprehension and capability to even take in all these wonders, and they merely concoct wild and baseless, unprovable theories, usually throwing in millions of years periods to obscure the whole lie.
Brian H.
So were the nice pristine lakes waiting for the life to migrate to them, or did they appear as the life arrived. And did the salt water life evolve to migrate on the land, and then evolve into life that lives in fresh water. To much faith in an unproven, unseen hypothetical world with too many questions. I like the "just so" history of the Bible. It fits, it works, and it was witnessed by God, and every man including Adam, and Eve. "Just so" just works for me.
Robert S.
Evolutionary damage control: Just keep shovelling more and more zeros onto the age of relics from the past, the earth and the universe.
William I.
"The fossils actually date from the Flood of Noah’s day, about 4,500 years ago."

Is that a guess or do you have verifiable proof of this? Also, it's not exactly honest to then go on making claims, based on this guess work, that it somehow proves your hypothesis of a "global flood".

A for effort, F for methodology
David Catchpoole
Hello William,
Are you aware of how presuppositions work, and the starting assumptions behind secular geology? Do you appreciate the different starting assumptions behind biblical geology? This recent feedback item briefly discusses this issue, and would be a good place to start.

There is now a considerable literature in creationist publications about the timing of geological features and the interpretation of fossils, in particular on issues such as the location of the pre-Flood and post-Flood boundaries. You will find these articles by using the search box on creation.com. I would encourage you to read more on this issue so you can appreciate the thinking behind it and understand that it is not a guess.
Peter H.
Evolutionists frequently make a virtue out of changing the story,contrasting "science"with religion that is dogma. Yet if the story has had to be rewritten so often, and so extensively, it surely suggests an underlying dogma religeously held by Darwin devotees! It is only in the face of new discovery that revision is considered,- but never the paradigm.
Daniel T.
"Twice as wrong - and more" is an eye opening article. Here in India, our greatly acclaimed historians are unable to present a composite, clean and unambiguous account of Shivaji Maharaj, a Maratha hero who lived less than 400 years ago.But, their confusion is atleast partly explained by some handwritten documents. How can these so called evolution scientists determine the age of any geological finds as being millions of years. They will never have a composite, contemporary supporting or corroborative information related to other species or environs etc. at those imaginary times. Like astrophysicists, Hawking-Einstein-Hoyle etc. included, they simply have some elementary maths/rather arithmetic, which gives them such figures running into millions and billions of years of time and matching distances in light-years! Since these are not "observations" recorded by any human being (with a life span of 3 score and 10 years), they must be rejected outright, and Hawking is bound to accept this.

Some ordinary "observations" which Hawking and Hubble missed include this: The Big Bang requires that the immeasurable present day universe was immensely dense with high energy and it existed at that "Singularity" moment somewhere where it occupied no space. If there was no universe, then there was naturally no space ! That no-space-occupying immensely dense and high energy universe then, for no reason, exploded with a bang or expanded(so described for reasons known to Hawking) and parts thereof flew in all directions at speeds apporoaching the speed of light, simultaneously expanding,gaining mass and cooling down. Where is the great void at the precise point of BB that has been growing for 15 to 20 billion years!?
David G.
Fine tuning of results or 'predictions' is normal in science. The radical re-writes this article reports say that evolution is not science, but tendentious story-telling.

Comments are automatically closed 14 days after publication.