Fossils

Unscrambling the clues at a fossil site in Argentina which contains thousands of yet-to-be-hatched dinosaurs that have been quickly buried.

Thirty-eight fossil lizards reckoned to be 20 million years old—so well-preserved you can see whether their eyes are open or shut.

The results of an investigation into human footprints has brought conclusions that are out of step with evolutionary orthodoxy.

The controversial theory with a long history of competing concepts that is no closer to being resolved than it was in Darwin’s day.

A dying ammonite leaves behind a permanent impression which tells a story that needs explaining.

A delicate, fossilised plant unsurprisingly speaks of catastrophic burial.

A critic says morality has evolutionary roots, and blasts creationists for their “narrow” worldview.

Some scientists connect changes in the grasses that animals ate and the development of teeth.

Many people were taught that fossils are evidence of things happening slowly over millions of years. But they're not. On this week's episode, find out why standard evolutionary explanations for fossil formation don't work.

How do we interpret the latest Homo naledi findings with their associated ‘ape-man’ connotations and claims?

Windy conditions after the Ice Age may have caused the demise of these iconic animals.

Sneak peek of latest Creation magazine. Juvenile cats frozen in time give unique snapshot of the past.

Most have seen the supposed 'ape-to-man' progression on a T-shirt, poster or elsewhere pushing the idea that humans evolved from 'ape-men' in the past. What are these supposed 'proto-human' fossils that scientist have found and how would Bible-believing creationists explain them?

The notion that petrification processes take thousands of years blown out of the water in a matter of weeks.

Most people know that pollen can cause problems for those who suffer from hay fever. But did you know that pollen is also a major problem for the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record? Since the 1960s, the scientific literature has reported the presence of pollen and spores within a rock layer called the Roraima Formation in South America. This formation is supposedly over 550 million years old, yet according to evolutionary theory, flowering plants that produce pollen didn't evolve for another 390 million years! So why do we find pollen in the fossil record so long before the first flowering plants appear? The simplest explanation is that the fossil record doesn't represent the evolution of life on this planet over eons of time, but is better explained as a consequence of the year-long global flood of Noah and its aftermath. This is recorded in the book of Genesis, chapters 6, 7, and 8.

Several years ago, the paleontological world heralded the discovery of a fossil called Tiktaalik roseae. Some scientists claimed it as a perfect missing link between fish and amphibians, and so it started appearing in school and university textbooks. However, the discovery of a series of footprints in Poland, made by a four-legged animal, has changed everything. That's because these foot prints were dated according to the same evolutionary ideas at 18 million years older than Tiktaalik. Therefore, from an evolutionary perspective, if four-legged animals existed before Tiktaalik, then Tiktaalik cannot be the transition between fish and four-legged land animals that it was claimed to be. Indeed, these footprints are so significant that they have prompted some scientists to say: "we thought we'd pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods. We have to rethink the whole thing." Isn't it amazing how just a little bit of new evidence can completely undermine a neat evolutionary story?