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