Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site psivax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen
From: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: SOR pamphlet #3
Message-ID: <199@psivax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 7-Dec-84 16:50:54 EST
Article-I.D.: psivax.199
Posted: Fri Dec  7 16:50:54 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 9-Dec-84 06:12:55 EST
References: <32500012@uiucdcsb.UUCP> <32500013@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Reply-To: friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley friesen)
Organization: Pacesetter Systems Inc., Sylmar, CA
Lines: 61
Summary: 

In article <32500013@uiucdcsb.UUCP> miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP writes:
>
>                                    ORIGINS
>                          No. 3: The Geologic Column
>
>     With a few exceptions on both sides, most  evolutionists  believe  in  the
>concept of uniformitarianism, while most creationists believe in the concept of
>catastrophism.  Technically, uniformitarianism and catastrophism  are  separate
>issues  from  evolution  and  creation.  However, the study of geology can shed
>much light on the origins issue.  Which model fits the data better?
>
>CIRCULAR REASONING
>     Briefly stated, most evolutionists believe that the  geologic  column  was
>built  up  by  slow,  steady,  uniform processes operating over long periods of
>time.  The sedimentary strata were usually formed as prehistoric seas rose  and
>fell  gradually.   As  evolution progressed from single-celled organisms to the
>diverse and complex forms seen today, fossils were formed  within  the  strata.
>Thus,  the  evolutionist expects to find a progression of simple to complex and
>old to young as the geologic column is examined from bottom to top.
>     However, the standard geologic table as expressed  in  evolutionary  text-
>books  cannot  be found anywhere in the world.  Evolutionists estimate that the
>entire geologic column described in the textbooks ``would be at least 100 miles
>high  ...  It is, of course, impossible to have even a considerable fraction of
>this great pile available at any one place'' [1].  The global average thickness
>of the local columns is only one mile.  Furthermore, the strata are often found
>in reverse order from what the evolutionist would expect.  How then is the evo-
>lutionary geologic table constructed?
>     ``That our present-day knowledge of the sequence of strata in the  earth's
>crust  is in major part due to the evidence supplied by fossils is a truism ...
>fossils have furnished, through their record of the evolution of life  on  this
>planet,  an  amazingly  effective  key to the relative positioning of strata in
>widely separated regions and from continent to continent'' [2].  This principle
>of  superposition, where rocks from different regions are arranged according to
>the presumed evolutionary sequence, is used to  construct  the  geologic  table
>found in most evolutionary textbooks.
>     But it is this same table, based upon the assumption of  evolution,  which
>is used as proof for evolution!  Derek Ager, past president of the British Geo-
>logical Association, wrote: ``It is a problem not easily solved by the  classic
>methods  of  stratigraphical  paleontology, as obviously we will land ourselves
>immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that  a  par-
>ticular  lithology  is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly
>that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology'' [3].

	This whole argument represents a misunderstanding of the basis for
the Standard Geologic Column.  In fact the column was determined *before*
evolution was considered a viable theory, and therefore is *not* based
on evolutionary assumptions, that is it is *not* an "evolutionary geologic
table" it is a pure geological table.  Fossils *were* used, but simply as
indicators, to supplement other data, without any assumptions being made
about evolutionary sequences.  The only assumption needed is that strata
with the same fossils are likely to be nearly contemporaneous, allowing
columns with partial overlap to be matched up on the *observred* sequence
of fossil species. Note that muutiple sequential matches are considered
to be necessary to demonstrate an equivalence, not just one.  Thus, the
reasoning from the geologic column to evolutionary sequences is *not*
circular, at least not in its proper form.
-- 

				Sarima (Stanley Friesen)

{trwrb|allegra|burdvax|cbosgd|hplabs|ihnp4|sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!psivax!friesen