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