Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!dual!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Newsgroups: net.origins Subject: Re: The Scientific Case for Creation: (Part 33) Message-ID: <594@cybvax0.UUCP> Date: Fri, 5-Jul-85 14:34:09 EDT Article-I.D.: cybvax0.594 Posted: Fri Jul 5 14:34:09 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 06:33:54 EDT References: <387@iham1.UUCP> Reply-To: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) Distribution: net Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA Lines: 45 In article <387@iham1.UUCP> rck@iham1.UUCP (Ron Kukuk) writes: > > B. TECHNIQUES THAT ARGUE FOR AN OLD EARTH ARE EITHER ILLOGICAL OR > ARE BASED ON UNREASONABLE ASSUMPTIONS. > > 62. Geological formations are almost always dated by their > fossil content, especially by certain INDEX FOSSILS of > extinct animals. The age of the fossil is derived from the > assumed evolutionary sequence, but the evolutionary > sequence is based on the fossil record. This reasoning is > circular [a-e]. Furthermore, this procedure has produced > many contradictory results [f]. Here is another oft-repeated creationist fallacy, which has frequently been refuted in this group. Gould once wrote an excellent rebuttal, which I will rephase as best I remember. The first sentence above is correct. The GEOLOGICAL sequence was observed before evolution was proposed. Geologists observed that PHYSICAL sequences of the layers of rock corresponded from locality to locality. They were able to obtain coarse sequences with the types of stone (sandstone, shale, coal, etc.), but finer sequences with fossil organisms. This observation of a sequence was an example of induction, a standard tool of science. The assumption of gradualism allowed the next step, the proposal that the geological record was in a chronological order. (No mechanism for interpolating layers made sense at the time. Now, we know that there are a few geological anachronisms [which creationists love to cite], but they are easily explained as overthrusts [where crustal motion has slid one layer of rock on top of another.]) Only after the above two steps was it possible to observe and infer that groups of organisms arose at different times in the fossil record, and that there seemed to be an increase in complexity of organisms as the layers became more recent. Having established the ideas of geological sequence and evolutionary sequence, it is then reasonable to use both together to fine tune eachother. Creationists ignore the historical origins to make a claim of circularity. This is comparable to claiming that an arch was created, rather than built with a central support that was later removed. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh