Creationist finds 60 million year old fossil, but he doesn’t believe that

This is a great example of how even when faced with hard scientific evidence, some people just refuse to give up their cherished worldviews. You can make excuses for EVERYTHING, even fish fossils found in ancient rock.

Whoops! A creationist museum supporter stumbled upon a major fossil find.

Canadian Edgar Nernberg isn’t into the whole evolution thing. In fact, he’s on the board of directors of Big Valley’s Creation Science Museum, a place meant to rival local scientific institutions. Adhering to the most extreme form of religious creationism, the exhibits “prove” that the Earth is only around 6,000 years old, and that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

Unfortunately, Nernberg just dug up a 60-million-year-old fish.

“No, it hasn’t changed my mind. We all have the same evidence, and it’s just a matter of how you interpret it,” Nernberg told the Calgary Sun. “There’s no dates stamped on these things.”

The scientific community is thrilled and grateful for the find, and the University of Calgary will unveil the five fossils on Thursday.

Red flag: “no dates stamped on these things”. That’s a giant clue that this guy has no grasp of the way we discover reliable information. We have plenty of reliable tools to determine the age of really old things. Then, we cross check those dates with other threads of evidence. So, the geology, biology, sedimentology, chemistry, etc. all point to the same conclusion — the earth is billions of years old and life evolved through this time. To reject such a fundamental fact is absurd. But, belief held only through faith tends to be absurd.

You can choose your methods of obtaining information, but revelation and faith in one book isn’t reliable at all. As a result, Creationists miss the big picture and the far more incredible story about life.

Nernberg is looking to get a cast of the fossil to use in his own creationism museum.

Photo credit: University of Calgary

Photo credit: University of Calgary

  22 comments for “Creationist finds 60 million year old fossil, but he doesn’t believe that

  1. May 29, 2015 at 10:02 AM

    LOL He would believe it if it had a date stamped on it?

  2. Richard
    May 29, 2015 at 11:01 AM

    Can you say “Cognitive Dissonance?” I knew you could.

    Seriously, such absurd beliefs are so tied into a person’s world-view and identity, their constructs of reality, morals, meaning-of-life, that enlightenment may be impossible. The scary thing is that these people are indoctrinating children ….

  3. Edward
    May 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM

    I guess we’re lucky he didn’t destroy the fossils in a fit of religious self-righteousness.

  4. MisterNeutron
    May 29, 2015 at 12:26 PM

    Clearly, the Good Lord put fossils in the ground solely to lead paleontologists to sin.

  5. May 29, 2015 at 1:23 PM

    Well, that SURE would make paleontologists’ jobs a heckuva lot easier! Species name would be great too!

  6. SmOakley
    May 29, 2015 at 1:23 PM

    The CBC news article I read states this guy thinks these fish were brought there by the Noah Flood myth. I guess they drowned…

  7. Well Now
    May 29, 2015 at 4:24 PM

    the information I’m presented with is people blindly following some books that have mistranslated and edited over the years to not even resemble whatever they were supposed to be originally about. pretty sure no bibles mention dinosaurs or gravity or photons or even the invention of the wheel

  8. Sgt.Retro
    May 29, 2015 at 6:51 PM

    I eagerly look forward to his forthcoming thesis “Fossils: Gods little jokes.”

  9. eddi
    May 30, 2015 at 1:51 AM

    Look up Johann Beringer.

  10. Rich
    May 30, 2015 at 4:41 AM

    ‘Wheel’ or ‘wheels’ are mentioned 32 times in the King James version of the Bible. They’re pretty much regular wheels, with axles and chariots and everything. Ezekiel mentions wheels lots of times, though, and what the hell he means by them is anyone’s guess.

    Photons, not so much. Nor fossils either.

  11. Richard
    May 30, 2015 at 7:45 AM

    At my nephew’s & niece-in-law’s Evangelical Mega-Church, they Honest to Thor teach that God put fossils into the ground to “test our faith.” I wish I were kidding or exaggerating. How do you respond to that? What kind of deity would do that? And by Occam’s Razor, isn’t the explanation of Old Earth and Geology and Evolution instead of positing a Loki-like trickster deity (who loves us so much s/he created Hell) actually simpler? Certainly more testable ….

  12. May 30, 2015 at 3:14 PM

    I’m with Edgar, and so are the many finds of Dinosaur Soft Tissue (just Google that and see the chronological catalog of peer-reviewed journal reports atop the list.) And those dino bones are loaded with short-lived carbon 14 and their eggshells have mostly unracimized left handed amino acids! 🙂

  13. Ronald H. Pine
    May 30, 2015 at 8:47 PM

    The idea that the simple act of finding of a fossil would or could disabuse a person of strongly-held Creationist beliefs is, of course, absurd, and so an instance of this not occurring is hardly news. Creationists have been finding fossils and recognizing them as remnants of past life from a time before evidence for organic evolution was realized to exist and before evidence of a very old earth was understood and they have continued to find them up until the present day. There is nothing about Creatonist beliefs to keep one from discovering fossils. There are a few Creationists who believe that fossil dinosaurs do not actually exist (my maternal grandfather was one of these) but are simply fraudulent manufactures, but the very great majority of Creationists fully accept the existence of fossils, including those of dinosaurs. And the Creationist protagonist of this story is quite correct in noting that there are no dates stamped on these fossil fish. The suggestion that isotopic dating could enable you to more or less directly determine the age of these fossil fish found in sandstone is misleading. The age of these fish can be demonstrated only by quite indirect (although valid) means. Concerning another matter, the posting co-editor of Doubtful News regards the actual, science-derived, story of the development of life on earth as “far more incredible” than the accounts in Genesis. I find this quite surprising.

  14. Michelle
    May 30, 2015 at 9:28 PM

    So…what is “reliable” dating? Because carbon dating has so far been inaccurate, specifically when saying a living penguin was 8,000 years old.

    Or when a hammer was found inside a rock that was supposedly 100 million years old.
    Basically, unless we can observe it and measure it in real time, we have no way of knowing for sure of dating of anything.
    If the earth has been here for billions of years, why is the oldest tree on earth less than 5,000 years old? I would have assumed that SOME trees would at least live for tens and hundreds of thousand of years at the very least if old earth was true.

  15. Lagaya1
    May 30, 2015 at 10:23 PM

    Why is that surprising? The Biblical story is silly, and dumb. The truth is much more wonderful and amazing.

  16. Rich
    May 31, 2015 at 4:30 AM

    Yes. I don’t wish to speak for him, but I’m assuming Torkel used ‘incredible’ to mean awe-inspiring or splendid rather than literally ‘not credible.’

  17. May 31, 2015 at 2:16 PM

    Incorrect and very misguided. I can’t even begin to address how off the mark your statements are and I would guess that wouldn’t go very far anyway. I will just say that you should look into such claims and questions further than one or two mystery websites.

  18. Rich
    May 31, 2015 at 4:04 PM

    So the earth is definitely not 4.5 billion years old, because trees die?

    Also, carbon dating is not used to date fossils or the age of the earth. That’s not what it’s for.

    The hammer in the rock (by which I think you mean the “London Hammer”, discovered in London, Texas in 1936) is frankly a massively dubious artefact. It’s claimed that it was found in Cretaceous strata, but it wasn’t – it was found on a ledge near a waterfall, and as I understand it the nodule is composed of dissolved minerals leached out by the water. The hammer itself is a nineteenth century American hammer. It’s interesting to read about, try some of the non-creationist stuff that’s out there.

    I’m surprised you didn’t bring up the Coso artifact too, which purportedly shows a) incredibly advanced technology inside a rock millions of years old or – probably more suited to your argument – b) a 1920s Champion spark plug inside a rock which THEREFORE proves rocks form incredibly quickly. Neither are true. It’s not futuristic technology, nor is it a rock. It is, though, undeniably a 1920 Champion spark plug.

    But… trees? Trees prove a young earth? I have genuinely never heard that argument before. Thank you.

  19. fred
    May 31, 2015 at 10:17 PM

    If you’re serious, you’d have researched this already. I assume you must have just come out of some christian school where they put forth straw man arguments. The internet is free. Search on the various ways crystals have been known to grow and how exactly various elements in them can be measured, and learn what a half life is as it relates to radioactive decay. Information is free.
    Trees have nothing to do with the age of the earth. In fact, death is part of evolution. I suggest you get on the train with that thought. Death is not part of original sin. Simply death happens or else we’d never remove old creatures. There is no reason at all to assume that trees would be the same age as the earth. Hard to imagine how you even came up with that one. You have some scattered thoughts

  20. Sporkfighter
    May 31, 2015 at 11:50 PM

    What would a “date” stamped on it look like? 60,000,000 B.C.?

  21. Sporkfighter
    May 31, 2015 at 11:52 PM

    “… God put fossils into the ground to “test our faith.”

    Well, isn’t that why He gives children cancer?

  22. Sporkfighter
    May 31, 2015 at 11:55 PM

    We know radioisotope dating (of which carbon dating is only one kind) works. If we were wrong about that, we couldn’t build nuclear bombs that work. Yeah, same science.

Comments are closed.