The Revolution Against Evolution

© 1994

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 3

II. HISTORICAL GEOLOGY and
"FAULT FINDING"

Evolutionists look to "historical geology" for proof that evolution took place. Historical geology is the study of the fossils and rock formations found in the earth, and from the positioning of these fossils and rock layers called "strata" we derive information regarding the estimate of the age of the earth, and the estimates of the ages of particular layers of rock.

Historical geology is a misnomer, since evolutionists presume the ages to be prehistoric. Radiometric dating is a method used to estimate ages of rock, a process where we analyze igneous rocks to find out how much radioactive material and subsequent by­products are in them. Using that information, scientists draw a conclusion about the estimated age of the rock. It is important to note that sedimentary rocks, which are the fossil bearing rocks, normally cannot be dated by this method.

Those of us who want to study the creation/evolution issue need to understand the background behind all "dating" methods used in "historical geology" and the assumptions involved. One paramount assumption of the theory of evolution is the idea of great expanses of time. We have already discussed why this assumption works against the theory of evolution, because of the laws of thermodynamics. Evolutionists are stuck with this concept whereas creationists don't have this problem.

Let's look at several underlying assumptions of the theory of evolution and examine them in the light of what we find in the rocks and fossils. The following is a list of these assumptions:

1. Evolutionists expect "younger" rocks to be on top of "older" rocks. The strata order should verify the theory of evolution.

2. Fossils can be "dated" by where they are found in the strata.

3. Strata can be "dated" by their fossils.

4. Certain fossils can be used as "index fossils" indicating the estimated age of the rock strata. This means that index fossils from two different time periods found in the same rock strata would be a problem.

Rock strata are not always found in the order that evolutionists expect. We find gaps between time periods. Rock sequences exist with "older strata on top of "younger" strata. Since the geologic column is foundational to evolution, this is a significant revelation.

The Conventional Geologic Column

Millions of Years

ERAS

PERIODS

EPOCHS

NOTES

 

Cenzoic

Quaternary

Recent

 

1

 

 

Pleistocene

Man

13

 

Tertiary

Pliocene

 

25

 

 

Miocene

 

36

 

 

Oligocene

 

58

 

 

Eocene

 

63

 

 

Paleocene

Mammals

135

Mesozoic

Cretaceous

 

 

181

 

Jurassic

 

Reptiles

230

 

Triassic

 

 

280

Paleozoic

Permian

 

 

310

 

Pennsylvanian

 

 

345

 

Mississippian

 

Amphibians

405

 

Devonian

 

 

425

 

Silurian

 

 

500

 

Ordovician

 

 

600

 

Cambrian

 

Shellfish

4500

Precambrian

 

 

Algae

What would it do to the theory of evolution if we find rock formations and strata out of sequence? That condition exists in many places.

Usually evolutionists explain such phenomena with the "overthrust" concept. That's where we find older rock pushed up over younger rock. When an actual overthrust occurs, however, it leaves plenty of evidence: gouge (ground rock and powder), breccia, slickensides, and striated stone. In the following documented cases, this evidence is insufficient to explain the magnitude of the problem.

EXPECTED

Cretaceous
Jurassic
Triassic
Permian Pennsylvanian Mississippian Devonian
Silurian
Ordovician
Cambrian Precambrian

ACTUAL

Precambrian Cretaceous

The Lewis Overthrust

First identified by Willis in 1901, this area encompassing Glacier National Park is more than 300 miles long and 15­50 miles wide, with Precambrian strata resting on top of Cretaceous.1 The fossils are in the wrong order. Evolutionists date the Precambrian rock at a billion years; the Cretaceous at 150 million years. The contact line between the two different strata is like a knife-edge, suggesting that instead of an overthrust, the strata were water-deposited in that order. This contact line can be clearly seen at Chief Mountain, with the older strata resting directly on top of the younger.2

Since evolutionists suppose the Precambrian era to be the age before life evolved, and the Cretaceous period to be the age of the dinosaurs, the entire evolutionary time scale is at stake. The idea that such a large section of the Rocky Mountains uplifted and slid twelve to fifty miles to the east without leaving any evidence of movement is incredible. It is more reasonable to believe that the geological time scale is in error.

Evolutionists have proposed two theories, one that a massive fold got started in the earth's crust, sheared, and forced to the east3, the other that the block of strata slid down a slope.4 The biggest problem with both theories is the size of the rock sheet. In order for an overthrust of the entire geologic column to occur, the original rock sheet would have been three miles high. A three-mile high, 12,000 square mile rock sheet doesn't tend to slide anywhere or overturn easily. The forces required to move it would have exceeded the crushing strength of the rock.

We investigated the Lewis Overthrust with creation geologist Michael Oard in August 2002.  He showed us the contact at Marias Pass from a distance, and you can get a perspective of the magnitude of the problem. Near Trick Falls at the Two Medicine campground, we hiked to an area where a flood in 1964 exposed the contact. Michael showed us a Ph.D. thesis that was written about this area, and the researcher puzzled over the problem that the slickensides were 90 degrees from the expected direction of the rock movement, and the integrity of the underlying strata does not justify an overthrust of the magnitude expected.

 


EXPECTED

Cretaceous
Jurassic
Triassic
Permian Pennsylvanian Mississippian Devonian
Silurian
Ordovician


ACTUAL

Ordovician
Cretaceous

The Franklin Mountains

At a location known as West Crazy Cat Canyon near El Paso, Texas, scientists found massive Ordovician limestones on top of Cretaceous strata.5 Evolutionists suppose the Ordovician period is the age of sea life, and Cretaceous is the age of the dinosaurs. Geologists found the fossils in the wrong order, and the strata are out of order, with no indication of movement between the two layers.

EXPECTED

ACTUAL

Glarus

Eocene
Paleocene Cretaceous
Jurassic
Triassic
Permian

Permian Jurassic Eocene

At Glarus, near Schwanden, Switzerland, the order is Eocene (youngest) at the bottom, Jurassic (older) next, then Permian (much older) on top.6 This would be an impossible order if the evolutionary geological time scale were true. We could possibly explain two layers of strata out of order by overthrusting; three layers are unthinkable! The Matterhorn is another example of out of order strata found in the Alps.

EXPECTED

ACTUAL

Red Rock Canyon and Valley of Fire, Nevada

Jurassic
Triassic
Permian Pennsylvanian Mississippian Devonian
Silurian
Ordovician
Cambrian

Cambrian
Jurassic
Triassic
Permian

Red Rock Canyon National Conservation area is an exposure of beautiful red, yellow, and purple sandstone rocks capped with gray Cambrian limestone. 35 miles west of Las Vegas, Nevada, the mountains look like they buckled in the middle, then tipped like a stack of pancakes. In order for evolutionist to account for these out-of-order strata, they need to believe that the Cambrian strata forming the Spring Mountains were overthrust from the west about 60 miles.

But to the northwest, the Cambrian Muddy Mountains caps the Jurassic, Triassic and Permian rocks forming the Valley of Fire. This compounds the problem as evolutionists now need to theorize that either there was one massive overthrust of 150 miles, or two separate overthrusts that created the same out-of-order sequence in two separate places. A creation geologist would believe that both of these areas were part of the same formation laid down in that sequence during the flood, but exposed by uplifting. Any faulting that would take place would be downhill, not uphill.
EXPECTED

Cretaceous
Jurassic
Triassic
Permian

ACTUAL

Permian Cretaceous

 

The Empire Mountains

The Empire Mountains in Southern Arizona have a cap of Permian limestone resting upon Cretaceous rock. The contact line between the layers of rock is irregular, resembling the meshing of a gear.7 If this was a real overthrust, the projections of the lower formations would have been planed off flat. There is no inter-bedding between the two rock sheets, nor is there any scraping, gouge or other evidence of movement.

EXPECTED

Tertiary Cretaceous Jurassic
Triassic Paleozoic

ACTUAL

Paleozoic Jurassic Tertiary

The Heart Mountain Thrust

The Heart Mountains, just east of Yellowstone, are 50 different blocks of Paleozoic limestone scattered over a triangular area of 30 by 60 miles.8 Underneath we find Jurassic and Tertiary sediments. Physical evidence for thrust faulting is absent, although a vertical fault may be possible.

The Great Smoky Mountains

Geological maps of the Great Smoky Mountains exhibit two large low angle thrusts, the Greenbriar thrust and the Great Smoky thrust, each containing out of order strata with little evidence of movement. According to a Geological Survey professional paper, "It is seen to be mostly a smooth clean-cut surface with little accompanying fault gouge or breccia, which dips at various but generally low angles."9 The interpretation: although the fossils are out of sequence, there is very little evidence that the rocks have moved. In September 2000, we found the contact line at Townsend and Calderwood. At both locations, the contact was horizontal and sharp. Elsewhere, there were evidences for movement as expected in areas where mountain building took place, but is an overthrust 300 miles long and nine miles wide possible? Some creationists maintain that it could only happen under catastrophic plate tectonic conditions where the layers are still wet.

In September 2000, we investigated the contact line of the Great Smoky fault, which was exposed near the cabin we stayed in Townsend. We also saw the same rock structure near Calderwood on the other side of the park. Although there is evidence of movement here, as is expected in an area where mountains have formed, the layers of rock showed good structural integrity that remained though the rocks were quite crumbly.

EXPECTED

Mississippian Devonian
Silurian Ordovician Cambrian

ACTUAL

Mississippian
Cambrian Mississippian Cambrian Mississippian Cambrian

The Grand Canyon

The Grand Canyon presents a much different kind of problem for evolutionists. There is a gap between two layers of strata where several geological "ages" are missing, but in one place has interbedded layers of alternating Mississippian and Cambrian strata.10 How could two layers of rock really be separated by millions of years of earth history if they are shuffled like a deck of cards and inter-tongued? This find has stirred up some controversy, with a challenge by an evolutionist answered in (March 1997) Creation Research Society Quarterly article.

Scientists from the Creation Research Society have documented over 500 examples of strata mix-ups. John Woodmorappe, in an exhaustive article on the subject, outlines the world's stratigraphic makeup.11 He shows that very few places in the world reflect the stratigraphic order evolutionists expect. In another article, he also examines radiometric "dating" and its assumptions. He gives 438 examples where there is a 20% error or more between the date expected and the measured radiometric date. 12

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Fossils Say No!

There are many documented cases where large fossils, such as trees or dinosaurs, extend through several layers of strata. These are called polystrate fossils, and are an indication that these strata were laid down in rapid succession. One such formation exists at Joggins, Nova Scotia.13

Coal was formed about 300 million years ago, according to evolutionary dating. However, Erich von Fange14 has documented several interesting human artifacts found in coal. These include:

1. a small steel cube
2. an iron pot
3. an iron instrument
4. a nail
5. a bell shaped metal vessel
6. a bell
7. a jawbone of a child
8. a human skull
9. two human molars
10. a fossilized human leg

Scientists have investigated several sites with human footprints in rock strata that contain fossils from ages evolutionists believe are older than the emergence of man. One interesting and controversial example is the Paluxy River fossils near Glen Rose, Texas. Creationists are divided on the value of this find, the history of which goes back to its discovery after a mudslide devastated the area in 1908.

Here, dinosaur footprints exist alongside what appear to be human footprints in the same strata. There are human tracks crossing dinosaur tracks, and dinosaur tracks that have blocked out human tracks in sequence. Investigators excavated some tracks out of the rock strata, and cross-sectioned them. They showed a compressed layer pattern that indicated that they were genuine, not carvings. Evolutionists who investigate the tracks insist that they are from an upright bipedal dinosaur. As the tracks have eroded over the years, they appear more dinosaur-like with age. Scientists from the Institute for Creation Research have decided to abandon using these tracks for evidence that dinosaurs were contemporary with humans, and removed references to the Paluxy prints from their literature. Doctors Robert F. Helfinstine and Jerry D. Roth disagree, believing that sufficient evidence exists to declare many of these prints to be human.15 The jury is still out on this one in my opinion.

Recent investigation at the Paluxy site has uncovered other unusual fossils such as a molar believed to be human, a cat print and a trilobite. Such a mix of fossils from vastly different evolutionary "ages" found at one site in the same strata raises questions about the validity of the assumptions underlying long ages.

Near Tuba City, Arizona, investigators found human footprints, handprints, and tracks of other mammals with the tracks of dinosaurs.16 These tracks were well defined, with impressions of toes and fingers clearly visible. We found these tracks on a visit in 1999. We think they are convincing, but many evolutionists reject these out-of-hand.

At Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah May 2001, we found four Indian petroglyphs depicting dinosaur-like creatures. Two of these were clearly sauropod dinosaurs, the other two looked like horned dinosaurs like a triceratops.

Near Antelope Springs, Utah, sandal prints were discovered embedded in strata right on top of trilobite fossils (Cambrian). 17 Other human footprints found in odd places: 18

1. A fossilized leather sole of a shoe embedded in Triassic rock.
2. Human impressions were reported in a limestone slab in New Harmony, Indiana.
3. A rock outcrop near St. Louis, Missouri produced a large number of footprints. This was in crinodial limestone.
4. Footprints were reported in a quarry at Herculaneum, Mo.
5. Footprints were found in sandstone near Carson City, Nevada.
6. Footprints were discovered when a top layer of rock was removed from a sandstone formation near Berea, Kentucky.
7. A shoe print was discovered in a coal seam in Fisher Canyon, Pershing County, Nevada.
8. Footprints were found close to a lake near Managua, Nicaragua, underneath eleven strata of solid rock, 16 to 24 feet below the surface. Also found were traces of domesticated dogs and horses. Polished stone artifacts and projectile points were also found.

Fossilization Requires Quick Burial!

One major assumption of evolutionists is that long periods of time are required to form strata. But, in order for fossils to be preserved, they have to be buried quickly. When an animal dies and the carcass remains on the surface, it does not take very long for the process of decay to consume the remains completely, including the bones. The very fact that fossils occur as frequently as they do in the strata demonstrates a massive, quick burial. Sea shells remaining on the ocean floor quickly break up and disintegrate, unless they are buried. The existence of fossils is evidence for catastrophe!

That catastrophe, according to creationists, was the world wide Biblical flood of Noah that covered the earth. During the flood, ecological environments would have created successive layers, in the order of their relationship to the sea. Bottom dwelling shellfish would be buried first, then fish, then amphibians, reptiles, mammals and birds. Hydrodynamic sorting action of the water also would contribute to layering and separation. Coal formation, petrification, and fossilization all are processes that can occur quickly under the right conditions. The advantage of a flood model is that it explains out of order sequences in the fossils, whereas evolution does not have that luxury.

An illustration that burial is a requirement of fossilization is the fact that we do not find any buffalo fossil remains, though the buffalo was found widespread on this continent.

Radiometric Dating

What about radiometric dating? Doesn't that provide proof for evolution? To answer that challenging question, we need to examine the assumptions behind so-called "dating" methods to test their validity. Radiometric dating is a measurement of the ratio between a radioactive element and its by­products, estimating the age using the half-life of the radioactive element. The following are the assumptions of this method:19

1. The original composition of the rock lacked contaminants of the by­product.
2. The half-life of the radioactive element remained constant, unaffected by catastrophic events.
3. The rock lacked contamination of the by­products after it solidified.
4. Leaching out or migration of the ions of the parent element did not occur.
5. Outside forces such as temperature, pressure, etc. remained constant and did not affect the dating of the rock.

If these assumptions are correct, then the radiometric dates are correct. But, there is no way for us to test these assumptions. If these assumptions are wrong, the method could yield erroneous dates far too old.

In the radiometric "dating" method, anomalies between expected dates and radiometric dates are common. Rather than to question the method and its underlying assumptions, scientists tend to accept the "dates" that support their conclusions and reject the ones that do not.

Suppose you have a burning candle sitting on the table. How long has that candle been burning? You can figure that out if you know the candle's burn rate and its original length. However, if you don't know the original length, or if you cannot verify that the burning rate has been constant, it is impossible to tell how long the candle was burning.

A similar problem occurs with radiometric dating of rocks. Since you cannot know the initial physical state of the rock, you can only guess according to certain assumptions based on what you know. These assumptions are based on the theory of evolution. Suppose conditions existed on the earth where there was a worldwide flood? How would such conditions affect the radiometric dates?

Scientists have dated Hawaiian lava, samples from Mt. Vesuvius and other active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Since we know when these eruptions occurred, we can predict that if radiometric dating is valid, the dates given by the method would match the historic date. The dates yielded by the experiment were far too old, into the thousands and millions of years.20

To yield accurate dates, a timepiece must be accurate and sensitive. Imagine a strange hourglass with irregular shapes and sizes of sand in it. While the hourglass is running, you feed more sand into the top while sand leaks out the sides and bottom. Radiometric dating is like that. We don't know the original condition of the rock, we can't be guaranteed that the sample is uniform in consistency, and we don't know if any of the parent or daughter elements have contaminated or leached out of the sample. But, that is the method used to prove that the earth is billions of years old!

Why does the radiometric dating methods consistently yield old dates? One explanation is that the parent elements in the rock, potassium, rubidium, and uranium, are highly soluble in water in their ionized form, making them subject to leaching, especially in a flood environment. In contrast, the daughter elements, argon, strontium, and lead, are comparatively insoluble. Therefore, the ratio of parent to daughter elements would be low. Some creationists also believe that radiometric decay rates speeded up during the upheaval of the flood, yielding inaccurate dates.

Dinosaurs, Mammoths, Extinct Animals

Evolutionists seem to use dinosaurs as propaganda. Everywhere you look, there are dinosaurs in the textbooks, dinosaur toys, dinosaur cartoons, dinosaurs in the schools. Almost always next to the dinosaur there will be the phrase "millions and millions of years ago." No wonder whenever we see a dinosaur, we automatically think in terms of long ages! But, where is the proof that they truly lived so long ago? Like all the rest of the fossils, evolutionists date dinosaurs the same way, by the strata. In turn, the strata are Cretaceous because they find dinosaur fossils in them.

Can we explain dinosaurs satisfactorily with a creation model? Of course! Before the flood, conditions on the earth were much different. The Bible tells us that the age of the oldest person living before the flood was 969. Many people believe that the "firmament" mentioned in the creation account in Genesis21 was a water vapor canopy surrounding the earth, shielding the earth from harmful radiation from the sun, providing a greenhouse effect and a warm climate.

One observation we can make is that reptiles, fish and other animals, do not stop growing as they age. The older reptiles get, the larger they get. Suppose a reptile lived for 900 years. What would you have? A dinosaur! Under such conditions, dinosaurs could have lived before the flood!

Those who hold to the vapor canopy model believe that the flood was caused by the collapse of this vapor canopy and the breakup of the fountains of the deep. The effect on this environment was such that it drastically reduced the ages of the people and animals that lived after the flood. Conceivably, dinosaurs (or their eggs) could have been taken aboard the ark, but not have survived as long in the new environment. Examine the ages of the patriarchs before and after the flood in the Biblical account. You would observe a dramatic drop in the ages after the flood. This could have been due to the absence of the protective water vapor canopy that would have filtered out the harmful radiation from the sun.

The collapse of this water vapor canopy and the subsequent rain would have caused a drastic cooling effect upon the earth, and would have caused temperature variations and extremes. Explorers discovered entire carcasses of mammoths encased in ice in the Arctic, quick frozen and well preserved. The contents of the stomach of one such animal were analyzed and found to contain vegetation that suggests that the climate of the time was much milder than it is today.22 They found bean pods still containing beans between the teeth.

What does the well-preserved state of this mammoth and the condition of the carcass show us? The mammoth must have been frozen rapidly. The calculations from the study suggest that the mammoth was peacefully grazing on summer buttercups one lazy late July, then a sudden freeze of temperatures in excess of ­150 degrees overcame him in a space of a half hour. What kind of cataclysm was this? Many believe that this was a cooling effect brought on the earth after the flood of Noah: an "ice age" if you will.

Currently creationist researchers are looking at a new model for the origin of the floodwaters: vast reservoirs of subterranean brine trapped underneath the continents. The scriptures say that the fountains of the deep were broken up. Many creationists now believe that the flood occurred from a giant rift that split the earth's crust from top to bottom, releasing massive geysers of superheated water hundreds of miles into the atmosphere. Dr. Walt Brown, one of the proponents of this idea, believes that the Mid-Oceanic Ridge, a mountain range 46,000 miles long that wraps around the earth, split apart violently and caused the flood of Noah. A popular theory called plate tectonics, taught in many geology textbooks, proposes that the earth's crust is composed of a number of plates each about 30 miles thick. Continents and oceans ride on these plates. Dr. Walt Brown proposes that the continents split apart rapidly as columns of water blasted through the surface, reaching speeds of 45 miles an hour.24 The hydroplate theory, as Walt Brown calls it, explains the origin of the flood waters, and also where the waters went after the flood. As the continents slammed into adjacent plates, they buckled, slid on top of one another and rose up out of the water. The forces wreaked upon the earth during that event must have been unimaginable.

The hydroplate theory lessens the need for a water vapor canopy to hold all of the waters of the flood. There has been some question as to whether a water vapor canopy is necessary to explain the pre-flood world, since the drop in life spans after the flood could be explained by genetic inbreeding and the accumulation of harmful mutations as the result of the fall of man. Since Genesis describes a much different world before the flood with no rain, just a mist that watered the earth, my belief is that there was a protective canopy of some sort.25

Creationist Dr. John Baumgardner has proposed another catastrophic plate tectonics model, similar to Walt Brown's proposal, but with rapid subduction of the continents being the driving force. He has produced a computer simulation model for this theory and it is rapidly gaining predominant acceptance among creation scientists. Other creation geophysicists, such as Michael Oard and John Woodmorappe, have also proposed different models to explain the origin of the flood and the sequence of strata. Oard bases his theories upon vertical faulting and Woodmorappe's TAB model proposes that the deposition of strata occurred in a sequence as the earth's crust downwarped. 

Behemoth and Leviathan

Job chapters 40 and 41 describe two animals, the behemoth and leviathan, animals whose descriptions strongly resemble dinosaurs.23 Could these two animals have survived the flood and gradually became extinct? Since Job is the oldest book in the Bible, perhaps he was an eyewitness to these animals. Historical accounts abound of ancient legends of dragons, sea serpents and monsters. For example, the Russian kopek coin shows St. George killing a dragon. Is it possible that these stories have basis in actual encounters with dinosaurs? Drawings from these ancient writings bear an uncanny resemblance to reconstructions from dinosaur fossils. Our friend John Goertzen has quite a collection of artifacts and drawings from ancient civilizations that have accurate depictions of dinosaurs.

There is fossil evidence for recent coexistence between man and mastodon. Rock carvings of the mastodon were found in Hava Supai Canyon in Arizona. A skeleton of a mastodon was found in Ecuador, evidently killed by Indians, with a circle of fires built around it for roasting of the flesh. Mastodon bones were found in a Mayan workshop in 1928, with smashed bowls and jars. They found a complete skeleton of a mastodon in an artificial salt pond constructed by Indians. This pond had a bottom of paved stones with the animal entombed by a sudden landslide.26 Since the Mayan civilization peaked about 1000 AD, this would suggest a very recent date for the existence of the mastodon, well later than the predictions of evolutionists.

All the findings of strange fossilized creatures need not intimidate us who believe in the Biblical account of creation and the flood. The Bible tells us about a vastly different climate before the flood, which would account for mass extinctions of animals that would have thrived before the flood but not today. We note that the theory of evolution does not adequately explain all the problems associated with extinction of dinosaurs and woolly mammoths. Why was there a great dying out of these animals, unless there was a great cataclysm?

More evidence against evolution: some animals or fish presumed extinct for millions of years were found alive and well. The coelacanth, a supposedly extinct fish used for years as an index fossil, was caught and examined in 1938 off the coast of Madagascar. Japanese fishermen reported fishing the carcass of a large dinosaur like creature out of the ocean near New Zealand on April 25, 1977. After taking pictures of this creature and samples, the carcass was thrown back in the ocean. In Japan, many believed that it was a plesiosaur.27 Others think it may have been a badly decomposed basking shark. Without the carcass to examine, one can only speculate, but many believe that the eyewitness accounts and photographs provide evidence debunking the basking shark idea.

Pleochroic haloes

Microscopic radiation burns in crystal rocks called pleochroic haloes is evidence for an instantaneous origin of the earth, according to Robert Gentry, an expert in radiometric dating. Since they are imbedded in the rocks, the radioactive material must have been formed while the rocks cooled. When he discovered polonium haloes (half life of 138 days), he delivered a major blow to the idea of a gradual origin of the earth.28 The question is, if the earth took "millions of years" to cool and then solidify, how was the polonium halo formed at all? If both cooled millions of years ago, why are uranium haloes found still radioactive? Short life halos are a geophysical impossibility unless the Earth is far younger than the theory of evolution would have us believe. Dr. Gentry concludes that instant creation may be the only answer.29

To summarize, the following is a list of conclusions we can draw concerning "historical geology" as it relates to the creation/evolution question:

  1. "Dating" of sedimentary rock cannot normally be accomplished by radiometric methods.
  2. Evolutionists "date" strata by the fossils in them, and "date" fossils by their strata (circular reasoning).
  3. In many places, "older" strata and "younger" strata are in reverse order.
  4. "Unconformities" or gaps between evolutionary time periods are common in the rock strata.
  5. There are many cases where fossils exist in rock strata not expected by evolutionists.
  6. Mixed together in the same strata were fossils from different evolutionary time periods.
  7. Polystrate fossils, or large fossils (trees, dinosaurs, fish), extend through several strata.
  8. Human footprints and remains have been found in the "wrong" strata.
  9. Fossilization requires quick burial. Otherwise, the bones quickly disintegrate under normal decay processes.
  10. Radiometric "dating" depends heavily upon unproven assumptions of evolution.
  11. Quick burial of dinosaurs and quick-frozen mammoths is evidence for a world­wide cataclysm.
  12. Living "extinct" animals such as the coelacanth, supposedly dead for millions of years were used by evolutionists as index fossils.
  13. Pleochroic halos are evidence for a young earth and an instant creation.

SCRIPTURE REFERENCES:

Job chapters 40 ­ 41

Genesis chapters 5 ­ 9

Psalm 104:5­9

II Peter 3:3­13

QUESTIONS FOR STUDY

  1. List different dating methods evolutionists use for determining the age of rocks and fossils.
  2. What are some assumptions of these dating methods?
  3. What are some factors that might affect the date of a fossil or a rock?
  4. List some examples of fossils found in the wrong order or in a wrong place.
  5. What might the traditional evolutionary time scale correlate to according to the Biblical framework?
  6. How do science textbooks or magazine articles popularize the theory of evolution and assume it?
  7. What is the significance of the mammoth found frozen in the Arctic?
  8. What are possible explanations for dinosaurs?
  9. Describe some of the geophysical models proposed for the flood and their differences.

1B. Willis. Geological Society of America Bulletin. Volume 19, pp. 305-352. (1902)

2Read, John G. Fossils Strata & Evolution. Scientific-Technical Presentations. P.O. Box 2384, Culver City, CA 90230.
3Levin, Harold L. Contemporary Physical Geology. Second Edition. Washington University. St. Louis. 1986.

4Alt, D.D and Hyndman, D.W. Rocks, Ice and Water. Mountain Press, Missoula, MT. 1973 pp. 21-24.
5Slusher, H.S. "Supposed Overthrust in Franklin Mountains, El Paso, Texas" Creation Research Society Annual p. 59 May 1966.

6Burdick, C. L. "Geologic Formation Near Loch Assynt Compared With Glarus Formation" Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 12 No. 3. December 1975.

7Burdick, C.L. and Slusher, H.S. "The Empire Mountains - A Thrust Fault?" Creation Research Society Annual p. 49. June 1969.

8Burdick, C.L. "Heart Mountain Revisited" Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 13 No. 4. p. 207. March 1977.

9King, Philip B., Neuman, Robert B. and Hadley, Jarvis B. Geology of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Tennessee and North Carolina. United States Government Printing Office, Washington D.C. 1968. p. 13.

10Waisgerber, William, Howe, George F. and Williams, Emmett L. "Mississippian and Cambrian Interbedding: 200 Million Year Hiatus in Question" Creation Research Society Quarterly. Vol. 23 No. 4. March 1987.

11Woodmorappe, John. "A Diluviological Treatise on the Separation of Fossils." Creation Research Society Quarterly. December 1983. pp. 133-185.

12Woodmorappe, John. "Radiometric Geochronology Reappraised." Creation Research Society Quarterly. Sept. 1979. pp. 102-129.

13Baker, Sylvia. Bone of Contention: Is Evolution True? Evangelical Press. P.O. Box 2453. Grand Rapids, MI 49501. 1976 p. 10.

14vonFange, Erich A. Time Upside Down. Living Word Services, 72876 County Road 29, Syracuse, IN 46567. 1981.

15Helfinstine, Robert F. and Roth, Jerry D. Texas Tracks and Artifacts. Bible Science Association. P.O. Box 260, Zimmerman, MN 55398-0260. 1994.

16Rosnau, Paul O. Auldaney, Jeremy. Howe, George F. and Waisgerber, William. "Are Human and Mammal Tracks Found Together With the Tracks of Dinosaurs in the Kayenta? Creation Research Society Quarterly. Vol. 26 No.2, Sept. 1989 pp. 41-47 and Vol. 26. No. 3 Dec. 1989 pp. 77-98.

17Baker, Sylvia. 1976. Op. Cit. P. 9.

18vonFange, Erich A. 1981. Op. Cit.

19Slusher, Harold S. A Critique of Radiometric Dating. ICR Technical Monograph No. 2. Institute For Creation Research, Santee, CA. June 1973.

20Chittick, Donald E., Boardman, William W., Blyth, John, and Olson, Robert. The World and Time: Age and History of the Earth. Creation Science Research Center, San Diego, CA 92123. 1971 p. 28.

21Genesis 1:6-8.

22Dillow, Jody. "The Catastrophic Deep-Freeze of the Beresovka Mammoth." Creation Research Society Quarterly. June 1977. P. 5-12.

23Job 40:15-24, and Job 41.

24Taylor, Paul S. The Great Dinosaur Mystery and the Bible. Master Books. P.O. Box 1606, El Cajon, CA 92120.

25Brown, Walt. In The Beginning, 6th Edition. Center for Scientific Creation, 5612 N. 20th Place, Phoenix, AZ 85016. 1995, p. 75.

26vonFange, Erich A. 1981. Op. Cit.

27Swanson, Ralph. "A (Recently) Living Plesiosaur Found?" Creation Research Society Quarterly. June 1978 p. 8.

28Connor, Steven J. "Mystery of the Radiohaloes" Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 14 No. 2. Sept. 1977 pp. 101-102.

29Gentry, Robert V. 1973 "Radioactive Haloes" Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23(5541) pp. 347-362.

Table of Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 3

Back to the Revolution Against Evolution home page

The Creation Bookstore
Shopping Cart
Revolution Against Evolution TV Show
Creation Essays
Seminars and Class Schedule
Online Books
Other online resources
Frequently Asked Questions
The Amy Foundation Website
Mount Hope Church

The Revolution Against Evolution has had over one million visitors since 4/28/97.

. Contact rae.org or send comments about this page HERE.