miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (12/03/84)
This is the third in the series of Students for Origins Research "Origins" pamphlets (2nd edition). They are in a PRELIMINARY (read: not final) form. The intended target audience is undergraduate students in public universities. There will be 5 in all: 1: The Creation/Evolution Debate 2: The Origin of Life 3: The Geologic Column 4: The Fossil Record 5: The Age of the Earth I hope to get one done every two weeks, but I can't promise that timetable. Comments by *both* sides are sought. I don't expect the evolutionists to agree with the conclusions (obviously, or else they wouldn't be evolutionists) but I would like to hear what you have to say. I won't have time to reply, as just working on these pamphlets will take all of my spare time until they are completed. I'll save your replies, though, and **WILL** get back to some of the more important ones after it is all finished. Personal replies from creation- ists may be mailed to me (uiucdcs!miller) if you don't want to deal with the flames of the net. I expect many "closet creationists" may want to take this route, and I would like to hear what you have to say also. I value everyone's opinions. I'm uploading this stuff from my p.c. at home. When it is in a final form, we'll ship it off and have it typeset along with the illustrations. A. Ray Miller Univ Illinois
miller@uiucdcsb.UUCP (12/03/84)
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 93116-0203friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (12/08/84)
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
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (12/08/84)
[Ray Miller] >p.s. no replies to pamphlet # 3?? No one objected to it?? I can't believe >that. The net must be slow again... Anticipating your arguments, I answered your recent article about four weeks ago. The net must indeed be slow for you not to have read it yet :-! Frankly, it is annoying in the extreme to read your latest contribution, which shows absolutely no indication at all that you considered the serious objections to "Flood Geology" that I raised. Had you bothered to read my article and the references I cited, you would have been spared the embarrassment of posting the following: > 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'' In Schadewald's article [*Creation/Evolution* IX, p. 12], cited in my posting of last month, it is pointed out that 800 billion fossils amounts to 21 per acre of the Earth's land surface. Conservatively estimating the fossil content of the Karroo formation to be only 1% of the Earth's vertebrate fossils, he finds that by Creationist reasoning there must have been at least 2100 vertebrates living per acre of the Earth's land surface at the time of the Flood. Think of the amount of manure Noah must have had to slog through! (Matched, perhaps, only by Creationist postings to the Net :-) In the same article, Schadewald also estimates conservatively that "if all the fossilized animals could be ressurected, they would cover the entire planet to a depth of at least 1.5 feet". He asks, "what did they eat?" And he points out that Creationists can hardly point to "the tropical paradise they imagine existed below the pre-flood canopy because the laws of thermodynamics prohibit the Earth from supporting that much biomass." > With a few exceptions on both sides, most evolutionists believe in the >concept of uniformitarianism, while most creationists believe in the concept of >catastrophism. I discussed this quite adequately in my earlier posting. The assertion simply cannot be upheld on either side. >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! Creationist accusations of circular reasoning are blatantly false, as I pointed out in my earlier posting. The main features of the geologic column were worked out in the 75 years *before* Darwin published *Origin of Species*, using principles which did not assume evolution. >...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. At this I would like to quote another of Ray's recent postings. Only the names has been changed, to protect the innocent... >Hand waving, Ray, pure and simple hand waving. Anyone can make any sort of >assertions they wish. It's quite another thing to back it up with >documentation, something creationists are quite reluctant to do. I also addressed this issue in my previous posting. The fact is, Ray's description of the fossil sequence isn't even right. For example, marine invertebrates are not found only at the bottom of the geologic column, but are instead spread throughout the fossil record, along with fishes when the latter finally appear. Whales, which would be expected to be fossilized with the first appearance of fishes of similar size and habitat, appear only much later, after the rise of mammals (as predicted by evolution). Contrary to the predictions of hydraulic sorting, fossils are not sorted by size at all. Small, delicate fossils are commonly found below large, rubust specimens. >...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. Right. Hydraulic Sorting, Mobility, Habitat, Intelligence explain the fossil record very well. Except when they don't. Which is most of the time. >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 Come on, Ray, we aren't going to get into the Paluxy crap again, are we? You should at least wait until after you read the soon-to-be published report of the scientists who went there, and save yourself further embarrassment. As for tree pollen in Cambrian rocks, who did this work? How do we know that the samples weren't contaminated? I certainly hope this work wasn't done in Austin, Texas, the "Allergy Capital of the World" :-) >The conclusion is that the creation model explains the bulk of >the geologic evidence better than the evolution model. The problem is, Creationists seldom bother to follow up on even the most obvious implications of their assumptions, as shown by the preceding discussion of the Karroo formation. Ray's claim is thus an empty one. As I asked in my previous posting, where is the detailed Creationist field work, the careful comparison of theory and observation, the detailed quantitative prediction of theory that characterizes genuine science? The answer is, it doesn't exist. You will study Henry Morris' writings in vain looking for much more detail than Ray has given here. These facts demonstrate better than anything I could say that the real purpose of "Scientific Creationism" isn't science at all, but propaganda. -- "When evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve" Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (uucp) bill%utastro.UTEXAS@ut-sally.ARPA (ARPANET)