Search This Blog

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Big Lie Number 2 - Evolution is accepted fact

















There are big lies and there are just WHOPPERS and it is the whoppers we intend to expose. Here is another one. For those of you who have seen the movie, EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, you know that naturalistic scientists and academics alike have sought to stifle any discussion as to whether macroevolution is the only answer. Behind the posturing and the blustering lies the fear that macroevolution will be exposed as an hypothesis which evidences have left far behind.

Macroevolution inserted itself into the discussion through Charle's Darwins idea that perhaps life evolved through natural selection and mutations, evolved from simple into more complex forms. He observed a form of evolution taking place in the Galapagos Islands among the finches and saw that paleontologists were finding a wealth of fossils in rock layers around the world. Charles Lyell, among others, proposed a Uniformitarian view of the geological column in which rock layers were put down gradually over millions of years. Therefore, the fossils found in them would be a record of life down through millions of years and an illustration of evolution at work.
Thus, Darwinism and Uniformitarianism began their lives together and inserted themselves throughout the scientific community, an inseperable couple.

Darwin's hypothesis was based upon the notion that cells were very simple things. Lyell's teachings were based upon the idea that the rock layers were relatively uniform throughout the world and that they would reflect, with better means of testing, long ages. Both of these notions have proven to be false.

Rock Layers and the fossil record

I will make two posts concerning this particular big lie. First, let us explode the myth that the rock layers support the hypothesis of macroevolution. Allow me to call a witness, Dr. Andrew Snelling of the AIG Organization:

Dr. Snelling is a Young Earth Creationist. He believes that the Genesis account of a world wide flood is a factual one. Before you scoff, allow him to present some evidences. Forget personal prejudices and consider the following -


"Genesis 7 explains that water covered all the high hills and the mountains, and that all air-breathing life on the land was swept away and perished. As part of the evidence of the Flood, we would expect to find rock layers all over the earth filled with billions of dead animals and plants that were rapidly buried and fossilized in sand, mud, and lime. And that’s exactly what we find.

Rapidly Deposited Sediment Layers Spread Across Vast Areas


On every continent are found layers of sedimentary rocks over vast areas. Many of these sediment layers can be traced all the way across continents, and even between continents. Furthermore, when geologists look closely at these rocks, they find evidence that the sediments were deposited rapidly.

Consider the sedimentary rock layers exposed in the walls of the Grand Canyon in northern Arizona (Figure 2). This sequence of layers is not unique to that region of the USA. For more than 50 years geologists have recognized that these strata belong to six megasequences (very thick, distinctive sequences of sedimentary rock layers) that can be traced right across North America.1


The lowermost sedimentary layers in Grand Canyon are the Tapeats Sandstone, belonging to the Sauk Megasequence. It and its equivalents (those layers comprised of the same materials) cover much of the USA (Figure 3). We can hardly imagine what forces were necessary to deposit such a vast, continent- wide series of deposits. Yet at the base of this sequence are huge boulders (Figure 4) and sand beds deposited by storms (Figure 5). Both are evidence that massive forces deposited these sediment layers rapidly and violently right across the entire USA. Slow-and-gradual (present-day uniformitarian) processes cannot account for this evidence, but the global catastrophic Genesis Flood surely can.





Another layer in Grand Canyon is the Lower Carboniferous (Mississippian) Redwall Limestone. This belongs to the Kaskaskia Megasequence of North America. So the same limestones appear in many places across North America, as far as Tennessee and Pennsylvania. These limestones also appear in the exact same position in the strata sequences, and they have the exact same fossils and other features in them.


Unfortunately, these limestones have been given different names in other locations because the geologists saw only what they were working on locally and didn’t realize that other geologists were studying essentially the same limestone beds in other places. Even more remarkable, the same Carboniferous limestone beds also appear thousands of miles east in England, containing the same fossils and other features.




Chalk Beds:

Figure 1. The chalk beds of southern England (above) can be traced across France, Germany, and Poland, all the way to the Middle East.


The Cretaceous chalk beds of southern England are well known because they appear as spectacular white cliffs along the coast (Figure 1). These chalk beds can be traced westward across England and appear again in Northern Ireland. In the opposite direction, these same chalk beds can be traced across France, the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, southern Scandinavia, and other parts of Europe to Turkey, then to Israel and Egypt in the Middle East, and even as far as Kazakhstan.2

Remarkably, the same chalk beds with the same fossils and the same distinctive strata above and below them are also found in the Midwest USA, from Nebraska in the north to Texas in the south. They also appear in the Perth Basin of Western Australia.

Click to enlarge.

Coal Beds:

Consider another feature—coal beds. In the northern hemisphere, the Upper Carboniferous (Pennsylvanian) coal beds of the eastern and Midwest USA are the same coal beds, with the same plant fossils, as those in Britain and Europe. They stretch halfway around the globe, from Texas to the Donetz Basin north of the Caspian Sea in the former USSR.3 In the southern hemisphere, the same Permian coal beds are found in Australia, Antarctica, India, South Africa, and even South America! These beds share the same kind of plant fossils across the region (but they are different from those in the Pennsylvanian coal beds).

Evidence of Rapid Deposition




Sloped Beds of Sandstone
Figure 6. The Coconino Sandstone layer in Grand Canyon contains sloped layers of sandstone called cross beds. These beds are remnants of the sand waves produced by water currents during the Flood.

The buff-colored Coconino Sandstone is very distinctive in the walls of Grand Canyon. It has an average thickness of 315 feet (96 m) and covers an area of at least 200,000 square miles (518,000 km2) eastward across adjoining states.4 So the volume of sand in the Coconino Sandstone layer is at least 10,000 cubic miles (41,682 km3).



This layer also contains physical features called cross beds. While the overall layer of sandstone is horizontal, these cross beds are clearly visible as sloped beds (Figure 6). These beds are remnants of the sand waves produced by the water currents that deposited the sand (like sand dunes, but underwater) (Figure 7). So it can be demonstrated that water, flowing at 3–5 miles per hour (4.8–8 km/h), deposited the Coconino Sandstone as massive sheets of sand, with sand waves up to 60 feet (18 m) high.5 At this rate, the whole Coconino Sandstone layer (all 10,000 cubic miles of sand) would have been deposited in just a few days!



Strong, fast-flowing water currents move sands across the ocean floor as sand waves or dunes (Figure 7a). As the sand grains are swept over the dune crests, they fall on the advancing dune faces to produce sloping sand beds, and on top of the trailing edges of the dunes in front.




The dunes thus advance over one another, resulting in stacked sand layers (Figure 7b) with internal sloping beds (cross beds).




Ayers Rock in central Australia (Figure 8 above) consists of coarse-grained sandstone beds that are almost vertical, tilted at about 80°. The distinctive minerals in the sand grains appear jagged and are different sizes (Figure 9 below) when viewed under the microscope. These features imply rapid transportation and deposition of all this sand before it had time to be worn smooth.






The total thickness of these sandstone beds, outcropping in Ayers Rock and found under the surrounding desert sands, is 18,000–20,000 feet (5,500–6,100 m).6 The minerals in the sand grains are distinctive, and the closest source of them is at least 63 miles (101 km) away.



Under the microscope the sand grains appear jagged and are of different sizes (Figure 9). One of the minerals is called feldspar, and it appears to be still unusually fresh in the sandstone. These features imply rapid transport and deposition of all this sand, before the feldspar grains could disintegrate or the sand grains could be worn down into round pebbles or sorted by size.7
Distinctive & Jagged Minerals within Sandstone







So soup-like slurries of sediment, known as turbidity currents, which travel at speeds of up to 70 miles per hour (113 km/h), must have transported all this sand, 18,000–20,000 feet thick, a distance of at least 63 miles and deposited it as the Uluru Sandstone beds in a matter of hours! This defies evolution ideology but fits with the Creation/Flood history of Genesis.



God’s Judgment “Clearly Seen”

Sediment layers that spread across vast continents are evidence that water covered the continents in the past. Even more dramatic are the fossil-bearing sediment layers that were deposited rapidly right across many or most of the continents at the same time. To catastrophically deposit such extensive sediment layers implies global flooding of the continents. This brief article describes just a few of the many examples of rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas.8

As Noah’s Flood catastrophically swept over all the continents to form a global ocean (described in Genesis 7–8), we would expect the waters to deposit fossil-bearing sediment layers rapidly across vast areas around the globe. And that is exactly what we find—further evidence that the global cataclysmic Genesis Flood was an actual event in history, just as God has told us in His eyewitness account of earth’s history. "





~~~~~~~











Dr. Andrew Snelling holds a PhD in geology from the University of Sydney and has worked as a consultant research geologist to organizations in both Australia and America. Author of numerous scientific articles, Dr. Snelling is now the head of the Research Division at Answers in Genesis–USA.

-->
Footnotes

L. L. Loses, “Sequences in the Cratonic Interior of North America,” Geological Society of America Bulletin no. 74 (1963): 93–114.

D. V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (London: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 1–2.
Ibid., pp. 6–7.

D. L. Baars, “Permian System of Colorado Plateau,” American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin no. 46 (1962): 200–201; J. M. Hills and F. E. Kottlowski, Correlation of Stratigraphic Units of North America-Southwest/Southwest Mid-Continent Region, American Association of Petroleum Geologists (Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1983); R. C. Blakey and R. Knepp, “Pennsylvanian and Permian Geology of Arizona,” in J. P. Jenney, and S. J. Reynolds, eds., Geologic Evolution of Arizona: Arizona Geological Society Digest, vol. 17 (1989): 313–347.

A. A. Snelling and S. A. Austin, “Startling Evidence of Noah’s Flood,” Creation Ex Nihilo 15, no. 1 (1992): 46–50; S. A. Austin, ed., Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe (Santee, California: Institute for Creation Research, 1994), pp. 28–36.

C. R. Twidale, “On the Origin of Ayers Rock, Central Australia,” Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie Neue Folge Supplement no. 31 (1978): 177–206; J. Selby, “Ayers Rock,” Geology Today 5, no.6 (1989): 206–209; I. P. Sweet and I. H. Crick, Uluru and Kata Tjuta (Canberra: Australian Geological Survey Organisation, 1992).

A. A. Snelling, “The Origin of Ayers Rock,” Ex Nihilo 7, no. 1 (1984): 6–9; A. A. Snelling, “Uluru and Kata Tjuta: Testimony to the Flood,” Creation 20, no. 2 (1998): 36–40. Back
D. V. Ager, The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record (London: Macmillan, 1973), pp. 1–13.

~~~~~~~

Six main geologic evidences for the Genesis Flood
Evidence #1. Fossils of sea creatures high above sea level
Evidence #2. Rapid burial of plants and animals
Evidence #3. Rapidly deposited sediment layers spread across vast areas
Evidence #4. Sediment transported long distances
Evidence #5. Rapid or no erosion between strata
Evidence #6. Many strata laid down in rapid succession

~~~~~~~

Geologists know all this. They know that all the rock layers of the earth are associated with a water catastrophic event or events. Not little events, either, not with some layers hundreds of feet thick and extending for thousands of miles. They understand that fossils were preserved because of sudden burial or otherwise would not have been preserved. They even understand that a from a the standpoint of hydrology the rock layers are indicative of a flood event. Yet they stubbornly cling to and preach, so many of them, a Big Lie. Why? Not for scientific reasons, but simply because they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that there may have been a Creator involved in the forming of all matter and all life. It is all about religion to them and their religion overcomes what is plainly seen in the evidences.

2 comments:

Taxandrian said...

Why? Not for scientific reasons, but simply because they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that there may have been a Creator involved in the forming of all matter and all life. It is all about religion to them and their religion overcomes what is plainly seen in the evidences.

Can I assume that the 'religion' you are referring to, is atheism? If so, how do you explain this?

Seems there are people who also read the Bible and believe in creation, yet don't believe in a Young Earth and a global flood. How come?

So, pretty please with sugar on top, could you Christians AT LEAST come to a consensus among yourselves before trying to convince the rest of the world how wrong they are?

radar said...

Taxandrian said...
Why? Not for scientific reasons, but simply because they cannot bring themselves to acknowledge that there may have been a Creator involved in the forming of all matter and all life. It is all about religion to them and their religion overcomes what is plainly seen in the evidences.

Can I assume that the 'religion' you are referring to, is atheism? If so, how do you explain this?

Seems there are people who also read the Bible and believe in creation, yet don't believe in a Young Earth and a global flood. How come?

So, pretty please with sugar on top, could you Christians AT LEAST come to a consensus among yourselves before trying to convince the rest of the world how wrong they are?


You have the premise wrong...this is a scientific question first and a worldview question second. The atheists and agnostics and non-Christians are not united (ID proponents include atheists and agnostics and Jews and Muslims and others, not just Christians).

I don't challenge Darwinism using much, if any, information from the Bible, I challenge it using evidences from the world around us. But I also know that every thought begins from a point of view. I do assert that Darwinists who understand the evidences believe in macroevolution because their worldview precludes consideration of a Creator, even though the facts fit that idea much better.

I also know that there are plenty of Darwinists who have been indoctrinated and don't know or have never considered the alternative point of view. Propaganda...Darwinists like to paint ID and YEC folks as religious anti-science nuts and thus keep a lot of people from even looking into the actual evidences. I am dedicated to showing those evidences rather than simply making a religious case out of it.

People who have read my blog know that I present a lot of evidences and very little theology to go with it when it comes to the area of origins. So, no, this Christian has no mandate to get all the Christians in the world to agree to one specific point of view and that has absolutely nothing to do with the actual debate.