RE: [asa] Loading the ark (Ken Ham)

I understand that a case can be made for evolutionary survival of stable
species, such as the Wollemi pine or the coelacanth (although it seems a bit
hard to imagine why, since many other animal and plant species in the same
changing environmental conditions have died off long since).

But if its remains were truly found in ancient geological layers (65 mya),
but not in intervening geological layers, would this constitute some level
of evidence against vast geological ages? I suppose two answers might be,
if the plant virtually died off but not completely, then its small
population wouldn't have created as much of a fossil trail, and just hasn't
been discovered in newer layers; and, the evidence for the geological ages
of the rocks is confirmed by many evidences, so just the absence of one
particular species in one sequence of rock doesn't overturn other lines of
evidence for the rock age.

Jon Tandy

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Campbell
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 12:48 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Loading the ark (Ken Ham)

Might be misrepresenting the Wollemi pine. Fossils were known from the
Cretaceous, same age as younger dinosaurs. Living ones recently discovered
in a remote spot in Australia. Study of the living ones shows that a
distinctive fossil pollen type known from much of the Cenozoic (after
dinosaurs to the present) also goes with them, so the gap between the fossil
record and the living ones is much smaller. Again, there's nothing about the
survival of a species that poses a problem for old earth views.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 29 16:44:39 2007