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