Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.17 $; site uiucdcsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!cord!hudson!ihnp1!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcsb!miller
From: miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.origins
Subject: Re: SOR pamphlet #3
Message-ID: <32500013@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Dec-84 22:21:00 EST
Article-I.D.: uiucdcsb.32500013
Posted: Sun Dec  2 22:21:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Dec-84 07:22:36 EST
References: <32500012@uiucdcsb.UUCP>
Lines: 219
Nf-ID: #R:uiucdcsb:32500012:uiucdcsb:32500013:000:14954
Nf-From: uiucdcsb!miller    Dec  2 21:21:00 1984


                                    ORIGINS
                          No. 3: The Geologic Column

     The history of the earth can be  found  in  its  rocks.   Lying  upon  the
primeval crystalline foundation, the local geologic columns are comprised main-
ly of water deposited sedimentary rocks.  What do these rocks reveal about  the
subject of origins?
     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].

AN ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATION
     Most creationists believe that the geologic column was  constructed  as  a
result of catastrophic (primarily hydraulic) conditions.  The sedimentary stra-
ta were usually formed as cyclic tidal forces  moved  sediment  into  conformal
near-horizontal  layers  [4].   The  order  of  the  fossils  within the strata
represents not the order in which organisms evolved, but rather  the  order  in
which they were buried.
     A hydraulic catastrophe would arrange fossils in a complex sequence deter-
mined  by  such  factors as the local source material, transportational charac-
teristics, precipitative environment, etc.  Additionally, three  other  factors
would  determine  fossil ordering: the elevation of the organism's habitat, its
mobility, and its intelligence.  For example, the creationist would  expect  to
find marine-dwelling invertebrates such as trilobites on the bottom, since they
lived on the ocean floor and would quickly become trapped as the sediments  be-
gan  accumulating.   Above  the trilobites would be the various fishes.  As the
flood waters rose and began to cover the land, amphibians  and  reptiles  would
become  the  next  victims.  The last to be fossilized would be those organisms
dwelling at the highest elevations, having the most  mobility,  and  possessing
the most intelligence.  Obviously, this would be humans.  Thus, the creationist
predicts the same general ordering of fossils in the local columns as the  evo-
lutionist, but for entirely different reasons.
     Despite superficial similarities, there are many differences  between  the
two  models.  For example, since the evolutionist believes the order of fossils
in the geologic column represents the history of evolutionary development,  ex-
ceptions cannot be tolerated.  ``Each taxon represents a definite time unit and
so provides an accurate, even `infallible' date. If you doubt it,  bring  in  a
suite  of  good  index  fossils, and the specialist, without asking where or in
what order they were collected, will lay them out on the table in chronological
order''  [5].   The  creationist, however, is perfectly comfortable with excep-
tions.  Due to the chaotic nature of the catastrophic flood, and to the  possi-
bility  of  smaller  post-flood catastrophes, occasional out-of-order sequences
would be expected.
     Furthermore, many creationists believe drastic changes in the earth's  en-
vironment  and  climate took place at the time of the flood.  Due to their uni-
formitarian assumptions, however, evolutionists cannot  account  for  extremely
rapid environmental changes.

FOSSIL GRAVEYARDS
     Catastrophism helps to explain many features of the geologic  column  much
better  than uniformitarianism.  For example, the very existence of fossils re-
quires catastrophic conditions, at least on a local level.  When organisms die,
they  usually  decay  or  are devoured by scavengers and do not become fossils.
That's why there's almost no trace of the millions of bison that died as Ameri-
ca moved west.  Fossilization requires rapid burial under a heavy load of sedi-
ment [6].
     It turns out, however, that catastrophic evidence  is  widespread.   Scat-
tered  across the globe are countless fossil graveyards, attesting to the rapid
death of billions of organisms on a scale which is unimaginable under slow, un-
iform  processes.   Evolutionists  claim  that  ``the present is the key to the
past'' but nothing has ever been observed in the present which can compare with
the record of the geologic column.  Space does not permit a full listing, but a
few of the more interesting examples include: the South African  Karroo  forma-
tion  containing  800  billion fossils covering 200,000 square miles, England's
Old Red Sandstone formation containing up to 1,000 fish  per  square  yard  and
covering  10,000 square miles, the vast dinosaur remains in the Morrison Forma-
tion of North America's mountainous west, etc.  The billions of  animals  which
formed  such fossils did not die slowly over long periods of time.  Paleontolo-
gists have found ``literally scores of skeletons, one on top of another and in-
terlaced with one another ... they all died together and were buried together''
[7].

POLYSTRATIC FOSSILS
     Polystratic fossils (fossils which extend across more  than  one  geologic
``age'')  represent another problem for evolutionary geologists.  These fossils
(usually trees and usually found near coal) must  have  been  formed  by  rapid
burial  in sediment [8].  Slow deposition across thousands or millions of years
would have led to decomposition before the fossils could form.

OUT-OF-ORDER FOSSILS
     Evolutionists believe that certain plants and animals  lived  only  during
certain  time  periods.   Creationists believe that all plants and animals once
were contemporaneous, although many have since become extinct.   And  in  fact,
there is much evidence for contemporaneous existence, from ``modern'' tree pol-
len in Cambrian rocks to human artifacts in the Ordovician  period.   No  doubt
the most famous of these so-called out-of-order fossils is the discovery of hu-
man and dinosaur fossilized footprints in the same strata in Glen  Rose,  Texas
[9].
     Evolutionists believe that dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years
before  the  advent  of  bipedal  primates.  Therefore, to find evidence of di-
nosaurs coexisting with humans is fatal to the hypothesis  of  an  evolutionary
geologic  sequence.  Such evidence has been discovered in the Cretaceous forma-
tion around the Paluxy River in Glen Rose.  Human footprints appear in the same
strata  with  dinosaur  footprints, in some cases even overlapping the dinosaur
prints.  Subtle human features can often be discerned, including toes, ball  of
foot, arch, heel, etc.
     The tracks have been found _i_n _s_i_t_u underneath overlying  Cretaceous  rock,
which  acted  to seal them since their formation.  Furthermore, the possibility
of track carving (either by erosion or by a hoax) can be refuted  by  means  of
lamination  lines  in the layer beneath the prints which follow the contours of
the depressions.  Where the  original  mud  was  nonhomogeneous,  discoloration
lines form parallel to the surface contour.  Once the rock hardens, these lines
will intersect with any depressions later cut into the surface.

FROZEN MAMMOTHS
     Many creationists believe that the earth's environment drastically changed
at the time of the flood.  For example, a pre-flood greenhouse effect resulting
in a global temperate climate is thought to have preceded the current cold  po-
lar  regions.   And  in  fact, remains of tropical plants and animals have been
found buried in the tundra regions,  including  the  rhinoceros,  hippopotamus,
camel,  etc.   But perhaps the most interesting find of all has been the frozen
mammoths.
     It has long been known [10] that the remains of mammoths can be discovered
permanently  frozen  north  of the Arctic Circle.  These remains continue to be
uncovered [11] and studied closely.  What makes these finds so important is the
strong evidence that the mammoths lived in a temperate climate, were trapped by
flood waters, then rapidly and permanently frozen until the present.
     Some of the mammoths were in such good  condition  that  their  flesh  was
still edible.  Certain anatomical features indicate the mammoths could not have
survived current arctic conditions.  Also, tropical  vegetation  was  found  in
their stomachs and mouths.  Many of the plants do not grow in cold climates, so
the mammoths must have been living in a warm climate  prior  to  their  deaths.
Furthermore,  mammoths  are  often found frozen in mud reaching a depth of over
4,000 feet.  Rapid and permanent freezing was required, otherwise the mud would
have thawed and the mammoths would have quickly decomposed.

     The evidence for catastrophism is so strong, that even some  evolutionists
are  now calling themselves ``neocatastrophists'', suggesting that the geologic
column ``consists of long periods of boredom  and  short  periods  of  terror''
[12].   However,  the  evolutionist has no evidence for such long time periods,
and is faced with many contradictions to the presumed sequence  of  the  evolu-
tionary  tree.   The conclusion is that the creation model explains the bulk of
the geologic evidence better than the evolution model.

                                  REFERENCES

[1]  O. D. von Engeln and  Kenneth  Caster,  _G_e_o_l_o_g_y  (New  York,  McGraw-Hill,
     1952), p. 417.
[2]  Hollis Hedberg, ``The Stratigraphic Panorama,'' _T_h_e _G_e_o_l_o_g_i_c_a_l _S_o_c_i_e_t_y  _o_f
     _A_m_e_r_i_c_a _B_u_l_l_e_t_i_n, April 1961, p. 503.
[3]  Derek Ager, _T_h_e _N_a_t_u_r_e _o_f _t_h_e _S_t_r_a_t_i_g_r_a_p_h_i_c_a_l _R_e_c_o_r_d (New York, John Wiley
     & Sons, 1981), p.  68.
[4]  Byron Nelson, _T_h_e _D_e_l_u_g_e _S_t_o_r_y _i_n _S_t_o_n_e: _A _H_i_s_t_o_r_y _o_f _t_h_e _F_l_o_o_d _T_h_e_o_r_y  _o_f
     _G_e_o_l_o_g_y (Minneapolis, Bethany Fellowship, 1968).
[5]  J. E. O'Rourke, ``Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,''  _A_m_e_r_i_-
     _c_a_n _J_o_u_r_n_a_l _o_f _S_c_i_e_n_c_e, Vol. 276, Jan. 1976, pp. 51-52.
[6]  Giovanni Pinna, _T_h_e _D_a_w_n _o_f _L_i_f_e (New York, World, 1972), p. 1.
[7]  Edwin Colbert, _M_e_n _a_n_d _D_i_n_o_s_a_u_r_s: _T_h_e _S_e_a_r_c_h _i_n _F_i_e_l_d _a_n_d _L_a_b_o_r_a_t_o_r_y  (New
     York, E. P. Dutton, 1968), p. 141.
[8]  F. M. Broadhurst, ``Some Aspects of the Paleoecology of Non-Marine  Faunas
     and  Rates  of  Sedimentation  in the Lancashire Coal Measures,'' _A_m_e_r_i_c_a_n
     _J_o_u_r_n_a_l _o_f _S_c_i_e_n_c_e, Vol. 262, Summer 1964, pp. 865-866.
[9]  John Morris, _T_r_a_c_k_i_n_g _T_h_o_s_e _I_n_c_r_e_d_i_b_l_e _D_i_n_o_s_a_u_r_s: _A_n_d _t_h_e _P_e_o_p_l_e _W_h_o  _K_n_e_w
     _T_h_e_m (San Diego, Master Book, 1980).
[10] Henry Howorth, _T_h_e _M_a_m_m_o_t_h _a_n_d _t_h_e  _F_l_o_o_d:  _A_n  _A_t_t_e_m_p_t  _t_o  _C_o_n_f_r_o_n_t  _t_h_e
     _T_h_e_o_r_y  _o_f  _U_n_i_f_o_r_m_i_t_y  _w_i_t_h  _t_h_e _F_a_c_t_s _o_f _R_e_c_e_n_t _G_e_o_l_o_g_y (London, Sampson
     Low, Marston, Searle, & Rivington, 1887).
[11] Hans Krause, _T_h_e _M_a_m_m_o_t_h - _i_n  _I_c_e  _a_n_d  _S_n_o_w?   (Stuttgart,  Germany,  Im
     Selbstverlag, 1978).
[12] Derek Ager, ``The Nature of the Fossil Record,'' _P_r_o_c_e_e_d_i_n_g_s _o_f _t_h_e _G_e_o_l_o_-
     _g_i_s_t_s' _A_s_s_o_c_i_a_t_i_o_n, July 1976, p. 131.

For more information on this topic:

Joseph Dillow, _T_h_e _W_a_t_e_r_s _A_b_o_v_e: _E_a_r_t_h'_s _P_r_e-_F_l_o_o_d _V_a_p_o_r _C_a_n_o_p_y (Chicago, Moody
Press, 1981).

Henry Morris, _S_c_i_e_n_t_i_f_i_c _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n_i_s_m (San Diego, Master Book, 1974).

Henry Morris and Gary Parker, _W_h_a_t _i_s _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n  _S_c_i_e_n_c_e?   (San  Diego,  Master
Book, 1982).

John Whitcomb and Henry Morris, _T_h_e _G_e_n_e_s_i_s _F_l_o_o_d  (Phillipsburg,  New  Jersey,
Presbyterian and Reformed, 1961).

Randy Wysong, _T_h_e _C_r_e_a_t_i_o_n-_E_v_o_l_u_t_i_o_n _C_o_n_t_r_o_v_e_r_s_y  (Midland,  Michigan,  Inquiry
Press, 1976).

last revision: fall 1984

                         Students for Origins Research
                                 P.O. Box 203
                             Goleta, CA 93116-0203