Re: Fossile record & Geologic column

bradburg@squared.com
Thu, 9 Jul 1998 10:07:53 -0400

> <snip>
>Let me suggest 2 things wrong with the above approach. One thing is
>absolutely certain, the lowest rock in the sedimentary column is the
>oldest. The uppermost rock in a sedimentary column is the youngest (the
>exceptions are so small and few as to be irrelevant). This means that the
>fossils found in the lowest rocks are the oldest and those found above are
>relatively younger.
>
>What this means is that we can arrange fossils in a relative age sequence.
>And we find that in the lowest rocks, the Cambrian we find Olenellus
>trilobites and NO eggs, not dinosaurs, no mammals, etc. This is true
>world wide. So what we can conclude is that when olenellus was deposited
>in the lowest Cambrian there were no dogs, whales, fish or eggs. The data
>suggests that dogs, fish, dinos, eggs, birds etc appeared on earth later,
>that is in the higher, younger rocks. ...
> <snip>
> ... if evolution did not occur then all it would take to disprove
evolution is to
> find dogs, whales, eggs, fish, birds etc in the LOWEST, OLDEST rocks ...
> <snip>
> ... What you should do is find evidence that disproves evolution ...
<snip>

Actually, let's be honest here and excercise a little common sense when
examining the fossil record and the geologic column. Discrepancies in the
fossil record with what evolution would predict are abundant. For example:
Stratogragrophic leaks - fossils are often formed in the wrong strata of
rock, in other words, fossils are found millions of years out of place.
Paraconformities - some rock layers representing millions of years are
simply missing from where they are supposed to be. The wrong order of rock
layers are sometimes found, such as in Glacier National Park, where a block
of pre-cambrian limestone (supposedly 1 billion years old) is on TOP of
cretatceous shale (supposedly 100 million years old). Polystratic trees
(my favorite) - fossilized trees that cut across supposed millions of years
of fossil record. Since the tree couldn't have fossilzed slowly, the
obvious conclusion is that the entire fossil record was laid down very
quickly by catastophism (not uniformitariasn), most likely during the
Genesis flood. Mass burials and the cambrian explosion show the "sudden
appearance" of complex life forms, rather than the gradual appearance of
increasing complexity. This is described by G. Gaylord Simpson as "the
major mystery of the history of life." And there's other compelling
evidence for the Genesis flood which I will only touch upon briefly. For
example, the size and growth rate of the Mississippi Delta and the Great
Barrier reef date them at approximately 4000 years old, precisely when the
flood would have occurred.

If you want a real-life, working model of catastophism as the model for the
geologic features of the earth just take a tour of the Spirit Lake area
around Mt. St. Helens. When the vulcano erupted, the lake surged up the
hillside breaking off trees and dragging them back into the lake as the
waters subsided. They floated around on the surface for a while and then,
finally, settled bottom first on the bottom of the lake where sediment
formed around them. This "laboratory" is remarkably similar to the fossil
forest at Yosemite, demonstrating the same "rootless" trees being buried in
very distinct layers of sediment. There is also a miniature "grand canyon"
that formed rapidly in the eruption as water "blasted" through the earth,
which exhibits the same, "distinct" layers of sedimentary strata that we
see in the real "grand canyon". That reminds me of another point, the
fact that the layers of strata in the earths crust are so very distinct
makes the idea of them being laid down gradually over millions of years
terribly suspect.

While we're on the subject of fossils, Darwin himself said "... the state
of the fossil evidence was the most obvious and gravest objection which can
be urged against my theory." It's been more than 100 years and we have
discovered billions of fossils and I'd have to say that Darwins statement
is still true today.

Yes, there's more than enough "evidence against evolution" to more than
console those of us who believe the literal creation account in Genesis.

Greg.