Re: Must the rules merely be that the index fossil must fi

Stephen Jones (sjones@iinet.net.au)
Fri, 12 Jan 96 22:57:47 EST

Jim

On Thu, 11 Jan 96 13:32:32 MST you wrote:

[...]

JF>The stratigraphic column provides relative dates. We can say, for
>example, that a particular assemblage fits into the late Jurassic.
>Geologists two centuries ago were able to discern many different faunas,
>which always appeared in the same order. This does not rely on or
>assume evolution; the broad details were in place well before Darwin
>published, subsequent work has merely refined the details.

I agree. The YEC claim that the geological column revealing ages in
millions of years, was an evolutionary invention, is simply false, as
Hayward and old-Earth creationist points out:

"For many centuries it had been believed that the world was only a few
thousand years old, and the Reformers considered that they could date
it from Scripture as being less than six thousand years. It therefore
shook the world when eighteenth- century geologists discovered
evidence that the earth's crust is very much older than that.

It is important to note that it was in the eighteenth century that
this first happened - well before Darwin was born. The pioneer
geologist James Hutton, for instance, wrote that he could see 'no
vestige of a beginning' to the earth's history - and he died in
1797.

Recent-creationists usually ignore this historical fact. Their
literature abounds with incorrect statements like this:

`Why, then, do geologists say the rocks are hundreds of millions of
years old, when they may only be thousands of years old? The answer
is that they are trying to agree with the theory of evolution that
needs enormous lengths of time to explain all the forms of life we
know today. (Andrews E.H., "From Nothing to Nature", Evangelical
Press, Welwyn, 1978, p63)

Such unfounded accusations are grossly unfair to all the early
geologists. Not only did they reach their conclusions many years
before Darwin launched his theory of evolution, but many of them
were Bible-believing Christians and creationists."

(Hayward A., "Creation and Evolution: Rethinking the Evidence from
Science and the Bible", Bethany House: Minneapolis, 1995, p72)

Am I now donning Glenn's prophet's mantle, to insist that Christians
get their apologetic facts right? :-)

Regards.

Stephen

----------------------------------------------------------------
| Stephen Jones ,--_|\ sjones@iinet.net.au |
| 3 Hawker Ave / Oz \ http://www.iinet.net.au/~sjones/ |
| Warwick 6024 ->*_,--\_/ phone +61 9 448 7439. (These are |
| Perth, Australia v my opinions, not my employer's) |
----------------------------------------------------------------