CREATIONISM VS EVOLUTION, (CONT.)

II) SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY & PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A RECENT CREATION, (cont.)

B) SCRIPTURAL TESTIMONY & PHYSICAL EVIDENCE FROM EARTH WHICH TESTIFY TO A RECENT CREATION, (cont.)

5) PERIOD OF A WORLDWIDE FLOOD, (cont.)

c) PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF A WORLDWIDE FLOOD

1) GEOLOGICAL HISTORY OF TODAY'S EARTH IS CATASTROPHIC IN NATURE, NOT UNIFORMITARIAN

a) UNIFORMITARIANISM = THE PRESENT IS THE KEY TO THE PAST

[pp. 130-131]

"Geomorphic processes which can be observed in action at present, such as erosion, sedimentation, glaciation, volcanism, diastrophism, etc. - all operating in essentially the same fashion as at present - can be [falsely] invoked to explain the origin and formation of all the earth's geologic deposits.

The doctrine of uniformity thus is supposed to render unnecessary any recourse to catastrophism, except on a minor scale. Great geologic features once attributed to geologic cataclysms or 'revolutions' can presumably be explained instead by ordinary processes operating over long periods of time...

It should be obvious that this principle can never actually be proved to be valid...

Historical geology is unique among the sciences in that it deals with events that are past, and therefore not reproducible. Since presumably no human observers were present to record and study these events of the past (actually, the only human observers -

Noah and his family - recorded that the events were catastrophic!)..., it thus is impossible ever to prove that they were brought about by the same processes of nature that we can measure at present...

b) FALSE PRESUPPOSITION OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION

[pp. 131-132]

"A second great principle of historical geology as currently developed is that of organic evolution. This is implicit in the [false] fossil identification method of determining the geological ages of specific rocks. It is [falsely] assumed [without proof] that, at any given period in the past history of the earth, there was only one assemblage of organisms on the earth and that, therefore, when these organisms are found as fossils in the rock stratum, the latter is thereby identified as belonging to that age. It is [falsely] believed that, through evolution, these creatures, and the assemblages thereof, became progressively more developed and specialized in the course of the ages. The fossils contained in the rocks, therefore, are considered [by evolutionists as] the best means... [and often presuppose it to be the only completely reliable means]... of assigning a geologic date to the rocks."

c) THE PRESUPPOSED GEOLOGIC TIME-TABLE

[pp. 132-136]

"The rock systems of geology and their corresponding geologic ages have for many years been worked up in the form of a[n erroneous] geologic time-table...

Such a presentation obviously indicates a gradual progression of life from the simple to the complex, from lower to higher, and therefore implies organic evolution. This is considered by geologists to be a tremendously important key to the interpretation of geologic history. Modern biologists in turn regard... [this presupposed and falsified] ...geologic record as the cornerstone of their hypothesis of organic evolution. It is common to read statements in biologic literature to the effect that, although modern biologic research has been unable to agree on the method by which evolution is brought about genetically or to provide examples of evolution occurring on any large scale today, it is nevertheless proved to be a fact by the paleontologic record.

'Evolution of the animal and plant world is considered by all those entitled to judgment to be a fact for which no further proof is needed. But in spite of nearly a century of work and discussion there is still no unanimity in regard to the details of the means of evolution.'

[Richard Goldschmidt: "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, Vol. 40, January 1952, p. 84.]

'It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations. In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.'

[Ibid., p. 94]

[And the following quotation indicates the emphasis the evolutionist places on his false interpretation of the fossil record to largely 'prove out' his false model of evolution]:

'Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more complex forms.'...

[Carl O. Dunbar: Historical Geology (New York, Wiley, 1949), p. 52]

[In actuality, the fossil record proves that all life is complex with many similarities shared amongst species and all species living contemporaneously]

...These quotations from outstanding evolutionary authorities both in geology and biology, demonstrate the great importance of the paleontological record to the theory [model] of evolution. In turn, the principles of evolution and uniformity are seen to be of paramount importance in the correlation of the geologic strata. These principles are absolutely basic, both from the point of view of the history of the development of modern geology and from that of present interpretation of geologic field data. The circular reasoning here should be evident and indeed is evident even to many historical geologists. 

For example, R. H. Rastall, Lecturer in Economic Geology at Cambridge University, says:

'It cannot be denied that from a strictly philosophical standpoint geologists are here arguing in a circle. The succession of organisms has been determined by a study of their remains embedded in the rocks, and the relative ages of the rocks are determined by the remains of organisms that they contain.' "

[R. H. Rastall article, "geology," in Encyclopedia Brittannica, 1956, p. 168, Vol. 10]

[pp. 132, 135-136]

"...It is maintained by many stratigraphers [ individuals studying the origin, composition, succession and distribution of rock strata] that other factors, especially that of superposition [layered positions] of the strata, are also important in geologic correlation and that, in general, these factors justify the usual assignment of ages to strata on the basis of their fossil contents. The usual situation, however, is that only a few formations are ever superposed in any one locality and that it is very difficult or impossible to correlate strata in different localities by this principle of superposition. The fossils must be resorted to, and the fossil sequence is [falsely] assumed to accord with the principle of evolution. Furthermore, even where superposed strata are exposed, it rather often happens that the fossils appear to be in reverse order from that demanded by the evolutionary history, which paradox is commonly explained by the assumption [without proof] that the strata have been folded or faulted out of their original sequence.

[Consider this statement by Schuchert and Dunbar: Outlines of Historical Geology (4th Ed., New York, Wiley, 1941), p.5]:

'In any particular region the sequence of geologic events is clearly shown by the order of superposition of undeformed sedimentary formations...

[Evolutionists by the use of the word 'undeformed' in the context above indicate that they only consider formations as normal which do not contradict the order indicated in their falsified geologic time scale established and upheld by themselves. The other formations which are innumerable they classify arbitrarily and falsely as 'deformed.' Actually, they are not deformed at all, but are an expected sedimentary deposit of a flooded condition on the earth]

...Of course, there are many places where the succession has been locally inverted by folding or interrupted by faulting, but such exceptions will betray themselves in the evidences of disturbance and in the unnatural succession of the fossils.'

[However, this is not the case. Evidence of disturbances are not found when fossils so frequently occur out of the expected order. 

Consider what Schindewolf says]:

'The sedimentary rocks by themselves, however, do not yield any specific time marks, setting aside the old law of superposition, which can provide relative age indicators only in a restricted manner, and which is unfit for age correlations. Moreover, it may be misleading in some cases: the beds in a section may be overturned or, owing to a hidden thrust plane, older beds may overlie younger ones....

The only chronometric scale applicable in geologic history for the stratigraphic classification of rocks and for dating geological events exactly is furnished by the fossils. Owing to the irreversibility of evolution, they offer an unambiguous time scale for relative age determinations and for worldwide correlations of rocks.'

[Schindewolf: "Comments on Some Stratigraphic Terms," American Journal of Science (Vol. 255, June 1957), p. 394.]

[In other words the geologic and fossiliferous formations in real life hardly ever conform to the falsely fabricated geologic time table of the evolutionists that appears in so many textbooks. So they resort instead to arbitrary and false assignments of specific ages to specific fossils without any proof - never considering the possibility that all lifeforms were created in the beginning]

The basis for the apparent great strength of the present system of historical geology is here clearly seen. Provision is made ahead of time for any contrary evidence that might be discovered in the field. The geologic time sequence has been built up primarily on the tacit assumption of organic evolution, which theory in turn derives its chief support from the geologic sequence thus presented as actual [but not real] historical evidence of the process. Fragments of the sequences thus built up often appear legitimately superposed in a given exposure, but there are never more than a very few formations exposed at any one locality, occupying only a small portion of the geologic column. Formations from different localities are integrated into a continuous sequence almost entirely by means of the principle of organic evolution.

And when, as frequently occurs, strata are found superposed but with the fossils in the inverse order, this paradox is resolved by saying that the strata must have been inverted through faulting or folding, whether or not there is any physical evidence thereof. When superposed strata are found with intervening systems missing, this is explained by the assumption of a corresponding period of erosion rather than deposition.

This neatly packaged system of geologic interpretation has the effect of making it practically impossible ever to dislodge it by any amount of contrary evidence...

The claim is merely made [by evolutionists] that it is possible to interpret geology in [terms] of slow processes acting over long time periods - not that it is necessary to do so. One may, in fact, read at length in Lyell and in words of the other early uniformitarian geologists without finding more than essentially this claim. Uniformitarianism, in other words, has simply been assumed, not proved. Catastrophism has simply been denied, not refuted.

But as a matter of fact it is not even true that uniformity is a possible explanation for most of the earth's geologic formations, as any candid examination of the facts ought to reveal."