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

We need to note how the fossil succession was worked out first. It was
worked out because strata were found to be in a particular order (i.e.
oldest at bottom- usually) The fossils appeared in an order as early types
like Smith and Cuvier found out in c1800 when evolution was not an option.
As extinction was realised then a succession of life was worked out and this
was only given an evolutionary interpretation - first by Darwin in
notebooks of 1838 I think.

Some life forms only existed for a few strata others for many. Thus lingula
appeared almost unchanged over 400 my i.e. did not evolve. That's been known
for centuries! So none of this affects geological ages though of course any
evolutionary theory will have to fit all this in.

To be totally chauvinistic - any evolutionist has simply got to accept what
geologists give them whether geological time or the order of fossils.

The type of argument put forward by Jon is typical of YECs whop throw this
out as a red herring whereas it has no effect on geological time , the order
of start or even evolution

Michael
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net>
To: "'ASA'" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 9:43 PM
Subject: 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.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 30 05:35:59 2007